Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
Very well put.:BigA:
"Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paintings
- Thread starter J4Bama
- Start date
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
He's making a ton of money by painting great plays in Bama football history.
He should have to license the sale of those paintings and pay the University a percentage of each one sold.
CBS and Espn are also promoting Bama football by televising the games.
So we should let them do it for free?
No.
Why?
Because they generate advertising revenue for themselves by promoting us.
That's a two way street.
Daniel Moore wants a one way street. He wants to take the University's symbols, logo's, the efforts of the players and coaches, and turn it into profit for himself without giving any revenue back to the university.
That's not right.
I love his work. He's great at what he does. But he needs to simply negotiate a licensing deal with the university.
That way he immortalizes Bama, he makes a lot of money, and Bama receives a portion of the proceeds. Good for everybody involved.
sip
He's making a ton of money by painting great plays in Bama football history.
He should have to license the sale of those paintings and pay the University a percentage of each one sold.
CBS and Espn are also promoting Bama football by televising the games.
So we should let them do it for free?
No.
Why?
Because they generate advertising revenue for themselves by promoting us.
That's a two way street.
Daniel Moore wants a one way street. He wants to take the University's symbols, logo's, the efforts of the players and coaches, and turn it into profit for himself without giving any revenue back to the university.
That's not right.
I love his work. He's great at what he does. But he needs to simply negotiate a licensing deal with the university.
That way he immortalizes Bama, he makes a lot of money, and Bama receives a portion of the proceeds. Good for everybody involved.
sip
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
If Bama let Daniel do his work for free with the attitude "His work is cherished by the administration", and Tennessee was the only school complaining, my opinion is a large majority of the now opposing would flip flop.
Us? I think that's why many fans paint a broad stroke........the "us" factor.
If Bama let Daniel do his work for free with the attitude "His work is cherished by the administration", and Tennessee was the only school complaining, my opinion is a large majority of the now opposing would flip flop.
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
To my understanding the University asked Moore to paint one picture, the original of which is in the Bryant Museum. I am unsure, but I imagine the University compensated him for that commission. So we have similarities there, but then the analogy goes awry.
Michelangelo was primarily a sculptor not a painter, so I don't know how many more paintings he did, especially paintings with religious themes. Michelangelo certainly did not put religious paintings on calendars, coffe cups, etc. and sell those.
Moore continued to paint numerous Alabama football themed pictures, sold those, reprints of those, and reprints of those on calendars, coffee cups, etc. The University did not to my understanding request that Moore do this.
I doubt that Michelangelo charged anyone else or made any money off of the painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, other than whatever he received from the Catholic Church (possibly a free pass to Heaven, Papal Indulgence, Papal Pardon, etc.). Moore has clearly profited from his paintings of Alabama football.
Although they might disagree with me, the Catholic Church does not own religion, or even the rights to all Christian religious symbols. The University of Alabama does own University of Alabama football and all the accompanying symbols.
So the whole Catholic Church suing Michelangelo for painting the Sistine Chapel analogy is flawed in my opinion. What would they sue him for? Not for painting it, they requested that he do it. Maybe for poor quality or damage to the building, obviously not the case. The similarity would be if they sued him for painting Christian symbolism and that they owned all such symbols, a position that would likely not be upheld (at least not today, back in the actual time and in Rome it would be a distinct possibility). Again, the University of Alabama clearly owns its athletics and accompanying symbols.
I don't know who Keith Dunnavant is, but I don't see any parallels in the two situations. Pope Julius II requested that Michelangelo (along with numerous other artists) paint murals inside the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo really didn't want to do the work, but was more or less forced. I'm unclear on whether Michelangelo was compensated by the Church and if so, how well he was compensated. The Catholic Church still owns the Sistine Chapel, as far as I know.
To my understanding the University asked Moore to paint one picture, the original of which is in the Bryant Museum. I am unsure, but I imagine the University compensated him for that commission. So we have similarities there, but then the analogy goes awry.
Michelangelo was primarily a sculptor not a painter, so I don't know how many more paintings he did, especially paintings with religious themes. Michelangelo certainly did not put religious paintings on calendars, coffe cups, etc. and sell those.
Moore continued to paint numerous Alabama football themed pictures, sold those, reprints of those, and reprints of those on calendars, coffee cups, etc. The University did not to my understanding request that Moore do this.
I doubt that Michelangelo charged anyone else or made any money off of the painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, other than whatever he received from the Catholic Church (possibly a free pass to Heaven, Papal Indulgence, Papal Pardon, etc.). Moore has clearly profited from his paintings of Alabama football.
Although they might disagree with me, the Catholic Church does not own religion, or even the rights to all Christian religious symbols. The University of Alabama does own University of Alabama football and all the accompanying symbols.
So the whole Catholic Church suing Michelangelo for painting the Sistine Chapel analogy is flawed in my opinion. What would they sue him for? Not for painting it, they requested that he do it. Maybe for poor quality or damage to the building, obviously not the case. The similarity would be if they sued him for painting Christian symbolism and that they owned all such symbols, a position that would likely not be upheld (at least not today, back in the actual time and in Rome it would be a distinct possibility). Again, the University of Alabama clearly owns its athletics and accompanying symbols.
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
What a fascinating and informative thread.
What it sounds like to me is that, in stubbornly pursuing their perceived legal rights, both Daniel Moore and the University of Alabama have run afoul of the law of unintended consequences. UA has lost all control over what Daniel Moore paints and sells; but Daniel Moore has lost the right to put his art on merchandise. I don't think either side quite had this outcome in mind...
What a fascinating and informative thread.
What it sounds like to me is that, in stubbornly pursuing their perceived legal rights, both Daniel Moore and the University of Alabama have run afoul of the law of unintended consequences. UA has lost all control over what Daniel Moore paints and sells; but Daniel Moore has lost the right to put his art on merchandise. I don't think either side quite had this outcome in mind...
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
As has been stated this is not a clear cut win for either side. I guarantee you Daniel Moore is not happy about the ruling because he did not get everything he wants although I am confident Moore would never admit this publicly.
I don't understand what is so hard to understand about the judge's ruling. There were legal precedents in this case and I don't know anyone that thought the university was going to be successful in preventing Moore from painting Alabama football scenes or to get a roylaty from his prints.
Personally what I had not anticipated was the judge's ruling on coffee mugs, calendars, etc. I really had not even considered Moore's coffee mugs, calendars, etc., but this is definitely a source of revune for him. Based on the legal precedent, most notably Tiger Woods suing Rick Rush and losing, the university was not going to stop Moore or get money out of him for the prints. Taking the legal precedent into consideration, I think the ruling is VERY fair. I don't know the judge who made this ruling, but it has been pointed out this is a very well respected judge.
Daniel Moore is not a clear cut winner in this case. I don't understand why people seem to think he is, but the judge ruled in Moore's favor as far as his paintings and prints. I'm sure there will be an appeal, but I wish someone at the unversity would pull the person off to the side that is behind the lawsuit on behalf of the university and tell him to let it go. Even if there is an appeal, it's not going to change anything as far as the ruling goes.
From some of the arguements you have made, I'm beginning to think you are one of the attorneys representing the university in this case. :smile:
It's not enough to stop Daniel Moore from painting Alabama football scenes in the eyes of the law.
As has been stated this is not a clear cut win for either side. I guarantee you Daniel Moore is not happy about the ruling because he did not get everything he wants although I am confident Moore would never admit this publicly.
I don't understand what is so hard to understand about the judge's ruling. There were legal precedents in this case and I don't know anyone that thought the university was going to be successful in preventing Moore from painting Alabama football scenes or to get a roylaty from his prints.
Personally what I had not anticipated was the judge's ruling on coffee mugs, calendars, etc. I really had not even considered Moore's coffee mugs, calendars, etc., but this is definitely a source of revune for him. Based on the legal precedent, most notably Tiger Woods suing Rick Rush and losing, the university was not going to stop Moore or get money out of him for the prints. Taking the legal precedent into consideration, I think the ruling is VERY fair. I don't know the judge who made this ruling, but it has been pointed out this is a very well respected judge.
Daniel Moore is not a clear cut winner in this case. I don't understand why people seem to think he is, but the judge ruled in Moore's favor as far as his paintings and prints. I'm sure there will be an appeal, but I wish someone at the unversity would pull the person off to the side that is behind the lawsuit on behalf of the university and tell him to let it go. Even if there is an appeal, it's not going to change anything as far as the ruling goes.
From some of the arguements you have made, I'm beginning to think you are one of the attorneys representing the university in this case. :smile:
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
Not to forget the many Alabama Crimson Tide websites that generate revenue through subscription and/or ad support
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
True. Where do you draw the line?Not to forget the many Alabama Crimson Tide websites that generate revenue through subscription and/or ad support
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
But it is all Alabama and is the reason people visit the site.
I've had an Alabama portal of sorts since 2002, and it has google ad's to help off set the hosting. :BigA:
But it is all Alabama and is the reason people visit the site.
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
Actually, after this thread I am beginning to agree with you, based on the Woods case I didn't expect the University to win, that Moore did not get what he wanted and that the judge's ruling is fair. As others have said, I imagine that the decision will force both sides back to the table and hopefully this can be worked out where both sides are satisfied.
My concerns were stated before: (1) the University's ability to protect its IP after this ruling (which I now believe is unchanged); and (2) the issue of whether Moore was treating UA differently than other schools (which still has not been answered).
I wanted to poke holes in the Sistine Chapel argument because I think it is a terrible analogy. Is my saying "The University clearly owns its symbols" incorrect? I didn't say no one else could ever use them, which is what "fair use" entails if I understand correctly, but does not change the University's ownership, which I would think is not contested. If it is the University has a bigger problem.
I'll take that as a compliment. :biggrin2:
Actually, after this thread I am beginning to agree with you, based on the Woods case I didn't expect the University to win, that Moore did not get what he wanted and that the judge's ruling is fair. As others have said, I imagine that the decision will force both sides back to the table and hopefully this can be worked out where both sides are satisfied.
My concerns were stated before: (1) the University's ability to protect its IP after this ruling (which I now believe is unchanged); and (2) the issue of whether Moore was treating UA differently than other schools (which still has not been answered).
I wanted to poke holes in the Sistine Chapel argument because I think it is a terrible analogy. Is my saying "The University clearly owns its symbols" incorrect? I didn't say no one else could ever use them, which is what "fair use" entails if I understand correctly, but does not change the University's ownership, which I would think is not contested. If it is the University has a bigger problem.
Re: "Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paint
I may never have some of the older, more famous prints, but I wasn't alive during that time. Although they would be just as cherished if I had them, the later paintings are "my memories." And The Catch was one of the most impressive individual efforts I have ever seen in any sport.
Agreed.
I may never have some of the older, more famous prints, but I wasn't alive during that time. Although they would be just as cherished if I had them, the later paintings are "my memories." And The Catch was one of the most impressive individual efforts I have ever seen in any sport.
Latest threads
-
Russia Invades Ukraine XIX- Started by Huckleberry
- Replies: 8
-
Sayin [named starting QB at tOSU -- no teaser thread titles!]
- Started by SeventhHeavenRanch7777@gm
- Replies: 10
-
Who do you like to win in the big three games in week one?
- Started by saturdaysarebet
- Replies: 11
-
TideFans.shop - Get your Gear HERE!
Alabama Crimson Tide Car Door Light
Get this and many more items at our TideFans.shop!
Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.