Daniel A. Moore featured

[Tigermike 3,052]

Artist Moore featured in Alabama Alumni Magazine

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

STEVE IRVINE

News staff writer

TUSCALOOSA - Artist Daniel A. Moore, who is being sued by the University of Alabama over licensing fees, is the subject of a feature story in the spring edition of Alabama Alumni Magazine.

Moore, a 1976 UA graduate, said he received the lawsuit by fax on March 18, which was about the same time the quarterly magazine began reaching homes. The feature story included information where Moore's artwork, much of which depicts great moments in Alabama football history, can be bought.

"This story was done months ago," said Pat Whetsone, the UA Director of Alumni Affairs. "We had no idea of the impending lawsuit when we ran with the feature article. I think the university was trying to handle this quietly with Daniel Moore. I learned about it after the magazine was in the mail."

Whetsone added he "may have discussed pulling the article" with editor Janice Fink if he had learned about the lawsuit sooner.

The UA Alumni office is not governed by the university. The alumni office, which has been in existence since 1835, has its own constitution and bylaws.

"I know as a legal entity that is separate from UA, I go through the full licensing process," Whetsone said.

The University of Alabama Board of Trustees and Moore are fighting over royalties from the sale of Crimson Tide images without paying licensing fees.

E-mail: sirvine@bhamnews.com

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/birmingh...17786312051.xml

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

Irony can be so ironic.

[WarTim 3,457]

When it comes to uat, morons can be Sooooo "moronic".

[Bama My Heart 5]

When it comes to uat, morons can be Sooooo "moronic". 

153544[/snapback]

I'm only posting this because ya'll mentioned it on your board, and I do want to show you that there is always 2 sides to every situation. I understand the situation a little better now after reading this, before I was mad the the University and embarassed that we would do that to great artist that represent us so well. If the University does not sue or he pays they could lose licensing program.

This was posted from University Relations:

March 29, 2005

Important Facts About The University’s Licensing Program and Current Litigation

After years of efforts to reach an amicable resolution, The University of Alabama has filed a federal lawsuit against Daniel Moore and his company, New Life Art, Inc. The following is a summary of the issues raised in the litigation between the University and Mr. Moore.

The heart of the University’s complaint is that Mr. Moore and his company have breached their contractual obligations to the University and violated federal law by selling images owned by the University without a license, and by failing to pay the University agreed-upon royalties for sales of merchandise bearing those images.

The licensing of images related to The University of Alabama is a vitally important source of scholarship funding for Alabama students. Since our licensing program was established in 1981, over $8 million has been used to fund academic scholarships for students at the Capstone.

The University took this action to protect our valuable trademarks and other indicia and to avoid losing our licensing program. The law is clear: if we do not defend our rights we stand to lose them. Such a loss would not only have severe revenue implications (over $18 million since the inception of our modern licensing program), it could also prevent the University from ensuring that its images are marketed with the highest standard of good taste, consistent with the image of the University.

The following will help clarify the facts:

• Daniel Moore of New Life Art, Inc. worked under license for many years with The University of Alabama. As with all licensed products, the University received royalty income from the sale of his prints using University-owned indicia.

• Between 1991 and 1997 Daniel Moore produced four University-licensed prints. The four prints resulted in total sales by Mr. Moore of approximately $5 million, with the University receiving royalty income in excess of $500,000.

• Beginning in 1999, Mr. Moore also produced several additional prints that included University of Alabama indicia. However, he refused to license them through the University. Because Mr. Moore chose not to pay royalties on his sales of these prints, a significant number of academic scholarships were not funded. In addition, Mr. Moore has sold untold mugs, posters, calendars and other merchandise without paying a required royalty.

• Mr. Moore is in breach of his contract with the Bryant Estate to pay to the University a portion of the revenue he derives from the sale of memorabilia bearing the Bryant commemorative stamp. Those proceeds go directly to University projects and do not in any way benefit the Bryant family.

We have been in discussions with New Life Art, Inc. since 2000 to try to resolve this matter amicably. Having exhausted those efforts to protect scholarship revenues and with respect for the 571 other business owners who honor their licensing agreements with the University, we have taken the difficult step of asking the courts to resolve the matter.

The University must protect a vital source of scholarship funding for Alabama students and control the uses of its images in the marketplace.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

In addition, Mr. Moore has sold untold mugs, posters, calendars and other merchandise without paying a required royalty.

shouldn't that be "sold an untold number of mugs..."

otherwise, how do people know about the untold?

so, BS, this totally exonerates the tahd?

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

BMH, you can defend your school's position all day, but in the end, it was a publicity nightmare for them.

If Moore were truly in breach over the stamp deal, I think his lawyers would have had the good sense to realize this, but from what I have heard, they are confident in their case.

I hope this thing drags out until the Gallion case begins...

[WarTim 3,457]

Me TOO! Maybe they can combine the two cases!

[vatz22au 142]

When it comes to uat, morons can be Sooooo "moronic". 

153544[/snapback]

I'm only posting this because ya'll mentioned it on your board, and I do want to show you that there is always 2 sides to every situation. I understand the situation a little better now after reading this, before I was mad the the University and embarassed that we would do that to great artist that represent us so well. If the University does not sue or he pays they could lose licensing program.

This was posted from University Relations:

March 29, 2005

Important Facts About The University’s Licensing Program and Current Litigation

After years of efforts to reach an amicable resolution, The University of Alabama has filed a federal lawsuit against Daniel Moore and his company, New Life Art, Inc. The following is a summary of the issues raised in the litigation between the University and Mr. Moore.

The heart of the University’s complaint is that Mr. Moore and his company have breached their contractual obligations to the University and violated federal law by selling images owned by the University without a license, and by failing to pay the University agreed-upon royalties for sales of merchandise bearing those images.

The licensing of images related to The University of Alabama is a vitally important source of scholarship funding for Alabama students. Since our licensing program was established in 1981, over $8 million has been used to fund academic scholarships for students at the Capstone.

The University took this action to protect our valuable trademarks and other indicia and to avoid losing our licensing program. The law is clear: if we do not defend our rights we stand to lose them. Such a loss would not only have severe revenue implications (over $18 million since the inception of our modern licensing program), it could also prevent the University from ensuring that its images are marketed with the highest standard of good taste, consistent with the image of the University.

The following will help clarify the facts:

• Daniel Moore of New Life Art, Inc. worked under license for many years with The University of Alabama. As with all licensed products, the University received royalty income from the sale of his prints using University-owned indicia.

• Between 1991 and 1997 Daniel Moore produced four University-licensed prints. The four prints resulted in total sales by Mr. Moore of approximately $5 million, with the University receiving royalty income in excess of $500,000.

• Beginning in 1999, Mr. Moore also produced several additional prints that included University of Alabama indicia. However, he refused to license them through the University. Because Mr. Moore chose not to pay royalties on his sales of these prints, a significant number of academic scholarships were not funded. In addition, Mr. Moore has sold untold mugs, posters, calendars and other merchandise without paying a required royalty.

• Mr. Moore is in breach of his contract with the Bryant Estate to pay to the University a portion of the revenue he derives from the sale of memorabilia bearing the Bryant commemorative stamp. Those proceeds go directly to University projects and do not in any way benefit the Bryant family.

We have been in discussions with New Life Art, Inc. since 2000 to try to resolve this matter amicably. Having exhausted those efforts to protect scholarship revenues and with respect for the 571 other business owners who honor their licensing agreements with the University, we have taken the difficult step of asking the courts to resolve the matter.

The University must protect a vital source of scholarship funding for Alabama students and control the uses of its images in the marketplace.

153545[/snapback]

......Yaaaaaaawn

Done yet?

[BF11 0]

I'm still pretty shocked at this...yet another black eye to us.

[ECEstudentUA 9]

This whole things is stupid, it makes UA look bad. Also, I dont really see what Moore was doing wrong.

[ltfusn 0]

what would stop bammie from charging Moore a buck a year in liscencing?

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

what would stop bammie from charging Moore a buck a year in liscencing?

153915[/snapback]

Unmitigated greed?

[TopShelfTiger 0]

in mobile press "sound off " section....

Moore has nothing to paint:

-- Daniel Moore ought to sue the University of Alabama football team for not giving him anything to paint about over the last 10 years or so. He might have a better lawsuit than the university has against him.