Entry Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Day 4, Entry #5 with Jamie Cicatiello discussing the Daniel Moore controversy with the University of Alabama.
I agree with you both. The part that I’m baffled about is why it’s okay for Moore to paint large paintings but can’t sell his images on mugs? Is it because the University feels that it’s harder to keep track on what he sells? You would think UA would like Moore’s images on mugs since the public really enjoys his stuff.
David and Adrian both make a great point that one of the selling points of Moore’s paintings is that they are painted by a UA grad who loves Alabama football. If you see Moore’s painting’s, you can tell how much he loves the tradition here in the way that he paints. They all have a larger than life feel and he uses dark, rich colors that give them a heroic quality. He puts great detail in the pieces, like the painting of the ‘92 National Championship where our guy is running down the sideline and Coach Stallings is jumping in the air. The paint on all of the other coaches’ faces are dark, but the paint on Dubose’s is face is lighter because he was next in line to coach and the numbers on the player’s helmets are symbolic too. Either they have Stallings record as a coach or the date of the national championship, I don’t remember, but you get the idea. Whoever knows what they mean, feel free to chime in.
The University doesn’t shut down everyone selling knock off jerseys outside of the stadium on game days so it seems a little hypocritical that they don’t want Moore to paint.
I understand, like I stated before, if UA was coming from a branding standpoint, but they really don’t have a leg to stand on because Moore is keeping the integrity of the school in his paintings just like all of the other paintings you see of plays and players and coaches around town. I think Saban would have more of a cease and desist right to use his likeness in paintings on the side of gas stations than UA has with Moore, but maybe he doesn’t because he is now synonymous with UA football so UA owns his image as well? I’m not sure.
The players he paints don’t get any money from the paintings because they play for the University, but the University gets mad cash if they do something and then it ends up on video games. Remember when Ingram ran into the end zone and showed the world his script A’s on the inside of his hands? We then saw that same pose EVERYWHERE…on posters at Wal Mart, video game ads and so on. He had to know it would take off, so when the team is officially licensed by some video game company and you score and your player shows his hands off in the end zone, does Ingram get a commission from that? I highly doubt it. Although he may, I don’t know, but UA does because it has to be officially licensed. If I went and made a bunch of gloves with A’s on them that looked liked the ones that Ingram wore and went around and sold the shit out of them, would UA have a problem with that? Could they have a problem with that? Ingram flashed the world those gloves and then I was so full of Bama pride that I started selling them, would I be asked to stop?
Don’t get me wrong I think if you have a brand you deserve every right to protect it. I have a store and we branded it with hot pink and grey and filigree. Yes, I notice every time a blog or website has those colors, but do I own them? No, so I don’t freak when I see them. I think Moore would have more of a right to freak if he saw someone copying his atheistic more than UA panicking because he is painting scenes that you see on TV and you can buy on DVD.
At the end of the day I just think the law is more on Moore’s side than UA. Can either of you think why UA is suing except for the love of money? The players he is painting aren’t suing, so why can UA?