Entry Number   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

Day 4, Entry #6 with Adrian Marmolejo discussing the Daniel Moore controversy with the University of Alabama.

View the Daniel Moore brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

I have been trying to think of how the University may be trying to approach this and the best I can think of is the game and how money is made from it. The game itself is not entirely public. If you think about the ways you catch the game, none of them are really free. If you go to the game then you buy your ticket and if you watch it on TV, then your cable/satellite provider has paid to show that network, which you pay through your bill and so forth.

The companies that make money from images of players and the coach probably have a series of endorsement deals that ultimately lead to the University and/or the coach getting some big money. In Moore’s case, he is capturing and selling images from a game and making money. With that being said, I still don’t think it is fair for the University to try and get money from Mr. Moore for one important reason that continues to be said: trademark.

Endorsements usually have actual photographs and if they are paying big money, then you can bet that they will show a script A. I’m not entirely sure how accurate the paintings are to the images he is depicting, but even if they were pretty close, without a script A or something, the University doesn’t really have anything.