Started By
Message
re: Alabama suing painter for Alabama Football Paintings
Posted on 2/2/12 at 1:43 pm to Swoopin
Posted on 2/2/12 at 1:43 pm to Swoopin
quote:So could someone with a press pass snap a photo, then paint the image they captured and sell prints?
They are issued press passes. In other words- permitted.
Or could Daniel Moore purchase the rights to a photo taken by someone with a press pass, paint it, then distribute copies (basically what a newspaper does except instead of printing the photo in a newspaper, he's painting it on canvas)?
It just seems like the trademark rules shouldn't apply in this case. Don't they normally only apply when a consumer could be confused as to who manufactured the product? Ex: It's not ok to sell non-Polo shirts with a Polo logo on them, but it would be acceptable if a lawyer used a photo of himself in an ad, and he happened to be wearing a Polo shirt in the photo.
Posted on 2/6/12 at 6:50 pm to Swoopin
So why don't they license him again and make profits from his paintings? Then everyone's happy
Posted on 2/6/12 at 6:52 pm to 3rdandlong83
quote:Because he doesn't want too. He wants to keep all the profits for himself.
So why don't they license him again and make profits from his paintings? Then everyone's happy
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/SR_Icon.jpg)