Bama has reached a new low

[vatz22au 142]

Here

Give me a break bama.... This guy has painted masterpieces for years, and you decide now to just fax this guy a lawsuit?? Piss poor bama....and I dont want to hear the stupid legal excuses....his paintings were nothing but beneficial to the university in everyway.

[WarDlowe 39]

Well when you start losing and your football program isn't bringing in as much revenue you have to do something...

That is absolutly ridiculous. I can't believe that even UAT would do something like that.

[freebody 0]

I think his relationship with the school started going sour a couple of years ago - something about a new off-season portrait entitled "It's Rolling, Baby!"

[Auburn85 432]

it's all about the "financial situation". Wouldn't matter if Bama had a trillion dollar budget,it wouldn't matter because it will always be about the financial situation

Forget about the heart and soul that college football has on someone. Forget that he probabaly paid $40 bucks to see bama play Western Carolia and Utah State

[cadillacattack 0]

sorta' like Bama's male cheerleader that was "released" just days after mentioning Auburn during the '03 Iron Bowl....what a bunch of sore-losers.

[jc4tigers 0]

well i can tell you this much, if my name is Daniel Moore i never EVER paint another portrait for those SOBs

[Streyeder 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I blelieve this interpretation of trademark law is correct. If you're more knowledgable in this field then chime on in:

There is little you can do to fault UA in the lawsuit itself. The way trademark law is set up makes lawsuits like this VERY common online. If a company discovers another person that is possibly infringing on their trademark they MUST by LAW sue to protect their trademark. If they do not then they could possibly lose their trademark status.

A good example if when Microsoft sued teen Mike Rowe for his site MikeRoweSoft.com. They had to sue him for the domain, there really was no choice. Of course, there was public outcry and in the end MS gave the kid plenty of toys and a trip to the MS campus.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I blelieve this interpretation of trademark law is correct. If you're more knowledgable in this field then chime on in:

There is little you can do to fault UA in the lawsuit itself. The way trademark law is set up makes lawsuits like this VERY common online. If a company discovers another person that is possibly infringing on their trademark they MUST by LAW sue to protect their trademark. If they do not then they could possibly lose their trademark status.

A good example if when Microsoft sued teen Mike Rowe for his site MikeRoweSoft.com. They had to sue him for the domain, there really was no choice. Of course, there was public outcry and in the end MS gave the kid plenty of toys and a trip to the MS campus.

152236[/snapback]

If I accept what you say, then I must conclude there are sone very stupid people involved on UAT's side in this (not that this would surprise me ). If it took UAT or the company all these years to discover what Moore was doing to trigger the "must by law" action you suggest, then they are incredibly blind. I choose to believe otherwise and suggest you take off the crimson glasses and take a realist look at the scenario. Even an undergrad wireless engineer can figure this one out.

[PigskinPat 2,579]

What is the difference in what he is doing and, let's say, a newspaper journalist who does a 10 page story filled with photos about the Iron Bowl or even someone taking pictures of any old game, putting it in the newspaper, and selling copies for profit? Does every author who writes a book with photos about UA or any university have to get this kind of copyright permission?

Hasn't Daniel Moore donated works of art to the university as well as host fundraisers in which his artwork was sold to raise money for the university?

I really don't understand this one. Perhaps TECHNICALLY they have a leg to stand on, but WHY?!!! To squeeze a few more dollars into their pockets?

[vatz22au 142]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I blelieve this interpretation of trademark law is correct. If you're more knowledgable in this field then chime on in:

There is little you can do to fault UA in the lawsuit itself. The way trademark law is set up makes lawsuits like this VERY common online. If a company discovers another person that is possibly infringing on their trademark they MUST by LAW sue to protect their trademark. If they do not then they could possibly lose their trademark status.

A good example if when Microsoft sued teen Mike Rowe for his site MikeRoweSoft.com. They had to sue him for the domain, there really was no choice. Of course, there was public outcry and in the end MS gave the kid plenty of toys and a trip to the MS campus.

152236[/snapback]

Read my post before responding, I said I dont want to hear any crappy excuses. This is a s****y excuse.

The guy is painting football pictures of "glorious" football moments. Dont back your hick university up. Its pointless. If you read the article, you would know about "freedom of speech"...this goes with art. Read the article first.

[Erik81 0]

Daniel Moore should countersue Bama for lack of painting material over the past couple of years

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

That is low. Moore did nothing but good for the University of Ala. For a law school UofA sure did miss this thing for a long, long, long, long time.

Wonder if there are any trademark violations when Franny and gang pulled the NCAA stickers from their helmets.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Daniel Moore should countersue Bama for lack of painting material over the past couple of years

152250[/snapback]

I have it on very good authority that Daniel Moore will be suing The University of Alabama, for causing him to loose money over the past FIVE YEARS. It is his contention that their football team has been so bad that there has been nothing worth painting. UAT sucks and Daniel Moore's business sucks cause the Bammers haven't been buying pictures.

[DKW 86 7,440]

On Finebaum yesterday, Moore was given free access to Bama games, free ability to take pictures, etc. He was also given a free reign there for years. There was no problem with Moore until 1-1-2002. Bama filed the lawsuit about 1-1-2005. So they have been at each other for over three years already.

He has countersued using some law called Lanham? Act that declares that an artist has free speech privileges. I am very excited about this because I had deal with the CLC Nazis myself already. I could not even host AU stuff on the avatars page because of them, hell I wasnt selling a thing then.

I had several marketing ideas for products for gear and such. The privilage of making just one item for sell for will cost $10k upfront and several days filling out paperwork, about a reams worth if you can believe that.

BTW, CLC is owned by Bill Battle.

[WarTim 3,457]

No matter the amount of $$ that uat may or may not get from this whole mess, the BAD publicity far outweighs it. Is anyone in charge at the smaller school in west al.?

This is simply STUPID.

[jaydubb121 22]

Guess they'll have to start relying on Shula's "finger"painting to relive the recent glory days.

Oh wait.

There aren't any.

[Streyeder 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I blelieve this interpretation of trademark law is correct. If you're more knowledgable in this field then chime on in:

There is little you can do to fault UA in the lawsuit itself. The way trademark law is set up makes lawsuits like this VERY common online. If a company discovers another person that is possibly infringing on their trademark they MUST by LAW sue to protect their trademark. If they do not then they could possibly lose their trademark status.

A good example if when Microsoft sued teen Mike Rowe for his site MikeRoweSoft.com. They had to sue him for the domain, there really was no choice. Of course, there was public outcry and in the end MS gave the kid plenty of toys and a trip to the MS campus.

152236[/snapback]

Read my post before responding, I said I dont want to hear any crappy excuses. This is a s****y excuse.

The guy is painting football pictures of "glorious" football moments. Dont back your hick university up. Its pointless. If you read the article, you would know about "freedom of speech"...this goes with art. Read the article first.

152249[/snapback]

Law is a s****y excuse? Well now that I know that...

I posted what I thought might seriously be the situation. Frikkin a.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I understand what Streyder is saying. You can actually lose your trademark status on things if you don't sue to stop infringement of them. Even if you would like to ignore certain instances because they are mutually beneficial. Someone else who you don't want to authorize could use your inaction as a loophole to do things you don't want them to do.

The solution is to negotiate a contract with Moore that essentially makes him pay a nominal, even paltry fee for the right to do his paintings. There is no law that requires that everyone pay the same rights fee to use your trademarks. It's a negotiated thing on a case by case basis if I'm not mistaken.

It sounds to me like someone at UAT needs their head surgically removed from their arse. This should have easily been settled with a contract for a ridiculously low "rights fee" with Moore just to clear the trademark legalities and nothing more.

[Bama My Heart 5]

sorta' like Bama's male cheerleader that was "released" just days after mentioning Auburn during the '03 Iron Bowl....what a bunch of sore-losers.

152231[/snapback]

I have to agree with Auburn fans about the Daniel Moore situation. I am embarassed that the university would do this to a man that has done such beautiful work,and he always does the university proud. Bama fans enjoy seeing what picture he will do next. I understand that they are to get the rights from the sell of merchandise such as hats and tee shirts, etc, sometimes you can not even find Bama stuff on these TV shopping networks because they do not pay the license and can not sell the items. One thing I do not understand though is why Daniel Moore(if he felt this way that he is within his legal rights) ever paid the license fees. Why stop now? Whatever the case, I do not believe the University should sue him.

As far as the Cheerleader goes. Well, you just don't get on national TV if you are a Bama cheerleader with a scholarship and tell the world that your heart is in Auburn. If he were an Auburn cheerleader and said that about Bama you would feel the same way. I think we should give the scholarships to kids that have their heart at Bama. If he felt that way he should have stayed at Auburn. He did not come to Bama because of his studies of courses that he could not get at Auburn, he followed his girlfriend. Well he should have brought his heart with him.

[WarTim 3,457]

IF you are right, you may want to tell strey to pack his books and get off OUR Campus!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

As far as the Cheerleader goes.  Well, you just don't get on national TV if you are a Bama cheerleader with a scholarship and tell the world that your heart is in Auburn.  If he were an Auburn cheerleader and said that about Bama you would feel the same way.  I think we should give the scholarships to kids that have their heart at Bama.  If he felt that way he should have stayed at Auburn.  He did not come to Bama because of his studies of courses  that he could not get at Auburn, he followed his girlfriend.  Well he should have brought his heart with him.

152285[/snapback]

Actually, if my memory serves me right, I don't remember the cheerleader saying anything about where his "heart" was. I just remember the commentator asking him to say "War Eagle" and "Roll Tide" (which he did).

The "heart is in Auburn" part actually came in a separate newspaper interview for The Plainsman. He explained why he transferred to Bama...to compete for cheerleading championships which Auburn does not participate in. Bama goes to the clinics and competitions and Auburn doesn't and he wanted a chance to compete.

Here is a story from the Tuscaloosa News archives.

http://search.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.../311250346/1007

I would think that a simple reprimand and an apology from him would have sufficed.

And if you think you only give scholarships at Bama to kids whose hearts are with Bama, you're nuts. My cousin is a prime example. He went to Bama because of close proximity to home mainly and because he liked their program for the major he wanted to pursue. But if you went to his dorm room, you'd have seen an Auburn outpost in the bammer desert.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

The whole thing just seems petty to me, legal issues notwithstanding.

Sometimes people let the little things get in the way of the big picture and this is what appears has happened.

[Bama My Heart 5]

As far as the Cheerleader goes.  Well, you just don't get on national TV if you are a Bama cheerleader with a scholarship and tell the world that your heart is in Auburn.  If he were an Auburn cheerleader and said that about Bama you would feel the same way.  I think we should give the scholarships to kids that have their heart at Bama.  If he felt that way he should have stayed at Auburn.  He did not come to Bama because of his studies of courses  that he could not get at Auburn, he followed his girlfriend.  Well he should have brought his heart with him.

152285[/snapback]

Actually, if my memory serves me right, I don't remember the cheerleader saying anything about where his "heart" was. I just remember the commentator asking him to say "War Eagle" and "Roll Tide" (which he did).

The "heart is in Auburn" part actually came in a separate newspaper interview for The Plainsman. He explained why he transferred to Bama...to compete for cheerleading championships which Auburn does not participate in. Bama goes to the clinics and competitions and Auburn doesn't and he wanted a chance to compete.

I was only stating my opinion. I can not speak for the university, and in all honesty do not know why they dismissed him nor to be frank do I care. Yes, I do believe(just me not speaking for the entire Bama nation) that students receiving scholarships to cheer for the University of Alabama should be Bama fans. How can you cheer(the key word) for a team that you are not a fan. It's cheerleading for goodness sake it's not football, and frankly we could probably do with a few less pyramids anyway.

Here is a story from the Tuscaloosa News archives. 

http://search.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.../311250346/1007

I would think that a simple reprimand and an apology from him would have sufficed.

And if you think you only give scholarships at Bama to kids whose hearts are with Bama, you're nuts.  My cousin is a prime example.  He went to Bama because of close proximity to home mainly and because he liked their program for the major he wanted to pursue.  But if you went to his dorm room, you'd have seen an Auburn outpost in the bammer desert.

152293[/snapback]

[quietfan 233]

I understand what Streyder is saying.  You can actually lose your trademark status on things if you don't sue to stop infringement of them.  Even if you would like to ignore certain instances because they are mutually beneficial.  Someone else who you don't want to authorize could use your inaction as a loophole to do things you don't want them to do.

The solution is to negotiate a contract with Moore that essentially makes him pay a nominal, even paltry fee for the right to do his paintings.  There is no law that requires that everyone pay the same rights fee to use your trademarks.  It's a negotiated thing on a case by case basis if I'm not mistaken.

It sounds to me like someone at UAT needs their head surgically removed from their arse.  This should have easily been settled with a contract for a ridiculously low "rights fee" with Moore just to clear the trademark legalities and nothing more.

152282[/snapback]

This was my first thought after Streyder's legal analysis--if the University is only concerned about protecting future use of their copyright, that could easily be arranged with a simple contract between them and Moore that both should be able to easily agree upon.

But that raises another question--How long must a copyright enfringement occur without action before copyright protection is lost? And/or, is there a copyright equivalent to something like a "easement" situation with real estate? As I understand it, if I allow someone to drive over my land for a long enough period of time to access their property, they can earn a legal right to permanent use of that lpath. Is there a copyright equivalent in which consistent, long-term use by an individual earns them permanent access? After all these years of using UA images in his paintings, could Bama's copyright protection have already lapsed--in his individual case if not for everyone?

[...and finally, does this make all those Moore pictures of Bear Bryant, "the Goal Line Stand", van Tifflin's kick, etc. illegal contraband? I'll be more than happy to assist in removing them from half the dens & restaurants in the state of Alabama if so! ]

[vatz22au 142]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I blelieve this interpretation of trademark law is correct. If you're more knowledgable in this field then chime on in:

There is little you can do to fault UA in the lawsuit itself. The way trademark law is set up makes lawsuits like this VERY common online. If a company discovers another person that is possibly infringing on their trademark they MUST by LAW sue to protect their trademark. If they do not then they could possibly lose their trademark status.

A good example if when Microsoft sued teen Mike Rowe for his site MikeRoweSoft.com. They had to sue him for the domain, there really was no choice. Of course, there was public outcry and in the end MS gave the kid plenty of toys and a trip to the MS campus.

152236[/snapback]

Read my post before responding, I said I dont want to hear any crappy excuses. This is a s****y excuse.

The guy is painting football pictures of "glorious" football moments. Dont back your hick university up. Its pointless. If you read the article, you would know about "freedom of speech"...this goes with art. Read the article first.

152249[/snapback]

Law is a s****y excuse? Well now that I know that...

I posted what I thought might seriously be the situation. Frikkin a.

152276[/snapback]

Ok, you did not give a s****y excuse.

We are just trying to point out how bad of a image alabama is portraying by doing this. Did someone just wake up one day (i think this started three years ago?) and say," Hey...you know those pictures that guy draws of our football team? Well why dont we sue his ass?!?!?"

Its just annoying that there "might" be other things alabama could be spending its time on than giving this guy crap. Did the bama front office get bored?

I understand the law holds everything final, but this guy has a right to freedom of speech. As he said....art was the first form of journalism. You cant sue every dang person for drawing a guy in alabama uniform....