Artist Barred From Selling His Own Artwork For Daring To Promote University Of Alabama Football Feats

from the this-makes-no-sense dept

I could have sworn we wrote about this case earlier, but I'm searching around and can't find the post. It involves Daniel Moore, a painter and fan of the University of Alabama's football team. Given both those things, he's been painting portraits of some of the team's biggest achievements. Now, you might think that any normal person (or university) would be thrilled that its fans had taken things to the level of painting artistic portraits of the team's greatest moments. What a wonderful statement. Not the University of Alabama, however. It sued Moore for infringement. And while a court found that there's no trademark infringement if no Alabama logos are shown in the paintings, it also said that, even as such, he was barred from selling merchandise (like calendars) based on his paintings. Robert Ring points out that Moore is appealing the ruling, pointing out (reasonably) that if the paintings themselves don't infringe, it seems pretty damn hard to see why merchandise based on those same non-infringing painting would be barred. I'm even confused why there's an issue if the paintings had included Alabama logos. By that logic, any photographs that include a team logo would potentially be infringing as well, which makes no sense. But the biggest issue is why this is even an issue at all. The University should be thrilled that someone is helping promote their team the way Daniel Moore is.

Filed Under: alabama, daniel moore, painting, trademark, university of alabama


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    TDR, 21 Dec 2009 @ 8:02pm

    Re: Same answer as always...

    Sorry, but no. People are going to use content how THEY want to use it, regardless of anyone's attempt to force them to do otherwise. Smart businesses and individuals learn to take advantage of it and use it to further promote what they do.

    Idiots and dinosaurs, on the other hand, operate under the delusion that they have absolute control over every microscopic thing they can get their hands on. Trying to do that is about as smart as strapping a jet engine onto your car and trying to fly.

    Despite your comments to the contrary, Anti-Mike, you ARE a shill, simply by virtue of your blanket disagreement with every single story that is posted here. Disagreement without thought dominates you. One way or another, you've been bought. Not necessarily by money, and not even necessarily knowingly. But you've bought into the sad, outdated beliefs of the dinosaurs. Which makes you a shill. And an empty puppet.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.