Archive for the Jamie Cicatiello Tag

Making money on endorsements

Entry Number   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   
Day 5, Entry #9 with Jamie Cicatiello discussing the Daniel Moore controversy with the University of Alabama.
View the Daniel Moore brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Adrian makes a good point. You have to pay to see the game somehow so it’s not really free to the public. But in the case of branding and copyright is that once it’s out in public, it’s hard to protect your brand because it’s now public. That’s why companies “launch” there product.  When you think of Alabama Football, you may immediately think of crimson and white uniforms; that is branded in our collective conscious. Therefore the University cannot copyright the uniforms or jerseys.  That is why you can buy what looks like an Alabama Football jersey and put your name on the back (it’s also a classy way to support your team J  But because the script A is copyrighted and branded by the University, they have to defend that brand at every turn. Because now and for years to come, when you think of Alabama, you’ll see the script A.
When I was growing, up we had a captial A with the elephant stepping through it.  That is how UA was branded then and they had to defend that.  So even though you are paying to watch the game, once it becomes public, I really don’t think they can copyright the entire event. I hope I’m making sense. Too bad we don’t have a lawyer who could jump in and verify or not verify what I’m saying.
The University is making money on endorsements, football time, selling of everything that has players and footballs on it and so on. I don’t think that Moore is taking away from their profit. And at the end of the day, many people are profiting illegally from ripping off images of Alabama Football. I just don’t see it taking enough money out of the program to make a difference. I don’t see Moore’s paintings as a threat to the University in any way. And I would think if he was, he would work with them to settle things. But asking for 80% of his sales is ridonkulous!
Once a player signs to play with UA, anything he does is now the property of UA. It’s the same as if you were to write a paper and it gets published or whatever. The student may get a scholarship, but UA gets the money and the accolades and what not that comes with the accomplishment of what the student has done. Unfortunately papers aren’t played out on TV with millions watching so no one can paint a recreation of what someone wrote.
I’m sticking with the notion that once something like a football game becomes that public, it’s then public knowledge and it’s extremely hard for UA to copyright it or brand it.  I stick to that argument because I’m pretty sure Moore won on the grounds of freedom of speech, so I’m not sure what legal right UA has to sue him.

 

Where the law stands

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

The issue of branding

Entry Number   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
Day 1, Entry #1 with Jamie Cicatiello discussing the Daniel Moore controversy with the University of Alabama. 
View the Daniel Moore brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
First and foremost I would like to thank Sarah for asking me to participate, and since she is going with a ladies first approach, I would like to thank her for allowing me to start the discussion.
This topic is actually very important for me since I have a masters degree in photojournalism.  Free speech and freedom of the press are hot topics to me. Do I think Mr. Moore has the right to paint the football scenes and make money? Yes, I do.  I learned in photo law class that I have the right to take a photo of someone as long as they are in public.  Basically if you think in terms of the paparazzi, they have the right to take photos of celebs doing things in public–walking, talking shopping, whatever.  They cannot take photos of people in private places (i.e. malls, church, schools, etc.) because basically that falls under the laws of entrapment. That is why the National Enquirer had to run of photo of deceased Whitney that someone gave them and just couldn’t go in and take one themselves.
Why do I bring all this up? These football games that Mr. Moore is painting are not only seen by the fans that are in the stadium but also by the millions of people on TV.  So, yes, he is in my mind protected by many laws because everything that he is seeing and then painting is being made extremely public.
So now we have to go into licensing fees.  I read that the school wants 80% of what he makes. Do I think that is excessive? YES!!! Saying he is taking money away from scholarships is a little far fetched.  The Football program here generates millions of dollars a year.  Yes, Mr. Moore has been selling his paintings since the 1970s, but what he has made from the paintings most likely pales to what the team/school makes yearly.  You also have to think that, if he isn’t allowed to paint from what he sees on TV or from photos that are taken, what makes you think that the University will stop there? They may not want you to post photos of the game on Facebook because if you did that and someone copied the photo you posted and painted it or sold it and started making money, the University could put a stop to it because they are losing money on what they believe they own.  Which brings up branding.
Mr. Moore isn’t allowed to paint the uniforms exactly as they are, due to branding issues, which I agree with. The script “A” is licensed and so are some other things that are spoken about in the article.  So he does not paint them.  Therefore, once again, he is protected.  Now, you may all remember that Kim Kardashian sued Old Navy in the use of a model in her likeness and I think she won.  Do I think Kim did the right thing? Yes. So why can she sue and win against a look a like while I think it’s okay for Mr. Moore to paint uniforms that look like the real thing but aren’t?  Branding.  Kim’s boobs and ass are her one and only brand.  She has to protect that brand. That is why she is selective on where she can been seen for events because once she or her brand become common, like slang, it’s over.  She can’t charge for her brand.  Like here in the south we call every soda a coke.  Coke MUST defend their brand. If the entire U.S. called every soda coke, they would lose their copyright. (My dad is from Ohio so I ask for a pop when I want a drink.)
The University’s Football team is, to me, public property; they can’t be branded or copyrighted. The Script A? Yes! Copyrighted. “Crismson Tide” I believe is copyrighted? Maybe someone can find out if Steely Dan had to get licensing agreements for their song lyrics. But, as far as the crimson helmet with the white stripe down the middle, not so much. It’s just out there.
This whole controversy brings up many, many harder questions when it comes to music and sampling and so on so I look forward to the weeks discussion!