Entry Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Day 2, Entry #2 with Adrian Marmolejo discussing the Daniel Moore controversy with the University of Alabama.
Wonderfully put Jamie.
I often see this issue in a similar but different form. An individual or organization creates something and earns money from anyone who wants to reproduce it. They are by all means allowed their right to clam that property. I see how musicians often have to fight for or defend their intellectual property, but this is different. In the case of the University, the images that they are concerned about are not intellectual or even any property of theirs. They were captured from instances that were witnessed semi-publicly, by many people across the country.
Now the more I think about the game and who owns the likeness to that, the less certain I feel. There are two teams that train and put on some performance that only that combination of those two teams could do. So maybe the teams share any likeness of the game, regardless of who is in the image? I don’t know. If someone decided to produce and sell a complete re-inaction of a particular game, (which would be strange to me) depicting actual moments in the game, I think that starts to get close to the line.
However, the images that Daniel Moore paints are from angles and ambiance that only he experienced, which seems to say that he owns some or all of that. He is simply painting his experience, not stealing theirs. If they had commissioned him or some other artist to make these paintings the issue would be a little different. I would understand if any true trademarks were being reproduced. The way I see it is that the University is mostly trying to get some money and set the tone for what they expect from people selling related merchandise.