💬 Question regarding copyright

[Jseakin]

Has anyone ever dealt directly or know definitively where the line is regarding copyright infringement with UA? I'm asking because of an idea I have to sell a product and I do not want to cross the line in any way. I would assume making something that is crimson and white is perfectly acceptable, but for example is it acceptable to purchase an official UA sticker and place it on the display box of the item but not on the item itself?

I don't wish to even toe the line so I'm thinking this is unacceptable but figured I would at least ask someone who may be knowledgeable or have previous experience. Thanks in advance for any responses.

 

[sean]

that's probably crossing the line, even in the slightest little bit. so i wouldn't do it, if it were me.

the item(s) itself (themselves) woulnd't have the logo, but you would be using the logo to sell the item to a certain type of buyer (i.e., Alabama fan).

for some info about their licensing rules and what to do to obtain a license:

Licensing - Prospective Licensees - ROLLTIDE.COM - University of Alabama Official Athletics Site

 

[OldPlayer]

If you use the logo in any way, without authorization (payment to UA), it's copyright infringement.

 

[BamaFan334]

Using the logo to drum up business and make profit will be infringement. gotta get their approval. Bill Battle made his millions on this topic alone and Alabama highly protects their likeness. 'Roll Tide' is even protected, two words not even really associated to the school and academia.

 

[planomateo]

They went after a pastry business in Northport for putting script A's on cookies a few years ago.

University of Alabama aggressively defends trademarks. How far is too far?

 

[TerryP]

Has anyone ever dealt directly

CLC is a bitch to work with. I dealt with them a few years ago and the amount of money they wanted on the front end was ludicrous ... just on the script A.

 

[Jseakin]

Thanks to everyone for the responses! About what I expected and I certainly won't be challenging the line lol

 

[TUSKtimes]

That was some embarrassing stuff during the Daniel Moore siege. It looked and felt like the university was coming after the common fan. Anytime you get a David and Goliath type issue, Goliath is gonna take a beating in the eyes and ears of public opinion. In the end, I thought this was the most relevant, rational point in the article from that perspective.

Trademark holders absolutely have a right to defend their mark if they produce goods that are being competed against illegally, Heninger said.

"I think common sense is the boundary," he said. "You don't have to be pursuing people that aren't really in competition with you. Alabama takes the position that if the 'A' is on anything, they're going to stop you no matter what."

 

[TerryP]

That was some embarrassing stuff during the Daniel Moore siege.

How so?

Moore stopped paying UA (as well as a lot of his other creditors) what was due. You want to call the Northport Deli / cupcakes embarassing? I'm with you 100%. Moore, on the other hand, is a POS in my opinion.

 

[TUSKtimes]

How so?

Moore stopped paying UA (as well as a lot of his other creditors) what was due. You want to call the Northport Deli / cupcakes embarassing? I'm with you 100%. Moore, on the other hand, is a POS in my opinion.

It was a long, drawn out affair that got way too much publicity over 9 years. Bama ultimately lost in court and the court of public opinion. And it's really hard to tell a gifted painter what he can paint as the university found out under the first amendment rights. I thought his work, which I'm a big fan of, threw a lot of complimentary praise to the university. Much as Andy Warhol painting of Campbell's soup can only make said soup that much more appealing. Roll Tide!

 

[OldPlayer]

One of the issues with the Daniel Moore case was if UA could claim copyright on photos that display UA logos. Moore's artwork depicts actual events, similar to a photograph (however, if you look at a Moore painting you'll notice subtle differences that show it is not an exact painting of the event). If UA won the case, would they be allowed to require photographers or news outlets to pay royalties for depicting the UA symbols and logos in the photos? I'm glad UA lost this case.

 

[BamaFan334]

CLC is a bitch to work with. I dealt with them a few years ago and the amount of money they wanted on the front end was ludicrous ... just on the script A.

This is more of something that popped into my head and one of those wild imaginary type thoughts I get from time to time, but do you think alumni should be able to make money off of the school since they paid tuition and are the main reason for the school even being there? Isn't the Alabama tax payer essentially paying the government grants received by the school, and boosters that are paying the money to fund scholarships and new construction around campus? To me, the school is trying to protect the one thing that it's students, alumni, and boosters are coughing up the money for. Now I understand Nike and any other retailer making large profits and attempting to curb that where you can make some cash, but in a situation with the cookies, Daniel moore paintings, and the idea brought forth in this thread, are those really things Alabama should be able to bar people from selling? Once again, I don't know your thoughts on the matter, just curious to what you think and I know you probably have an interesting opinion on the matter.

 

[OldPlayer]

This is more of something that popped into my head and one of those wild imaginary type thoughts I get from time to time, but do you think alumni should be able to make money off of the school since they paid tuition and are the main reason for the school even being there? Isn't the Alabama tax payer essentially paying the government grants received by the school, and boosters that are paying the money to fund scholarships and new construction around campus? To me, the school is trying to protect the one thing that it's students, alumni, and boosters are coughing up the money for. Now I understand Nike and any other retailer making large profits and attempting to curb that where you can make some cash, but in a situation with the cookies, Daniel moore paintings, and the idea brought forth in this thread, are those really things Alabama should be able to bar people from selling? Once again, I don't know your thoughts on the matter, just curious to what you think and I know you probably have an interesting opinion on the matter.

That's not how business works. Should the low-level employee at Exxon/Mobil be getting some of the profits since s/he's the one that does the work? Should the baker be getting the profits since he's the one that makes and bakes the bread? Logos/symbols/trademarks are a way to generate $$ to keep the machine moving. I agree that going after a small bakery who made Alabama "A" cookies is ridiculous. But, the school has to protect their symbols. Otherwise, any baker could be used as an example by a t-shirt company who says, "they didn't have to pay, why should I?"

 

[planomateo]

Hell, Texas went after Shaggybevo.com for the use of Bevo, thus it's now shaggytexas.com. That was the handy work of newcomer AD Steve Patterson who replaced Dodds (one hell of a legacy to follow btw).

 

[TUSKtimes]

That's not how business works. Should the low-level employee at Exxon/Mobil be getting some of the profits since s/he's the one that does the work? Should the baker be getting the profits since he's the one that makes and bakes the bread? Logos/symbols/trademarks are a way to generate $$ to keep the machine moving. I agree that going after a small bakery who made Alabama "A" cookies is ridiculous. But, the school has to protect their symbols. Otherwise, any baker could be used as an example by a t-shirt company who says, "they didn't have to pay, why should I?"

And therein lies the balance between free enterprise and being thought of as the neighborhood bully. Trying to regulate greed is a losing proposition and quickly translates into a lack of common sense. Unfortunately, most don't have the resources to fight the good fight.

 

[BamaFan334]

That's not how business works. Should the low-level employee at Exxon/Mobil be getting some of the profits since s/he's the one that does the work? Should the baker be getting the profits since he's the one that makes and bakes the bread? Logos/symbols/trademarks are a way to generate $$ to keep the machine moving. I agree that going after a small bakery who made Alabama "A" cookies is ridiculous. But, the school has to protect their symbols. Otherwise, any baker could be used as an example by a t-shirt company who says, "they didn't have to pay, why should I?"

Well I understand that about your examples and I consider their hourly rate or salary the compensation for their work. Grilling a hamburger or collecting gas money is far from managing the business and the forethought to build and manage that business, so their compensation is where it ends for them in my opinion. Their day is 9-5, ow ers and manager's aren't as we all knkw, I hope. I know how business works and I know they need to protect their symbols, but shouldn't they be a little more lax on alumni, boosters, and others that funnel money into the program and money that built the empire that symbol embodies? My question was more of an interesting look at maybe not being so stingy against people that file with them that have connections and can prove it, not overall business sense. But like I said before, when it comes to Nike, Coca Cola, and Golden Flake, I totally understand maximizing the brand and creating cash flow.

 

[OldPlayer]

Well I understand that about your examples and I consider their hourly rate or salary the compensation for their work. Grilling a hamburger or collecting gas money is far from managing the business and the forethought to build and manage that business, so their compensation is where it ends for them in my opinion. Their day is 9-5, ow ers and manager's aren't as we all knkw, I hope. I know how business works and I know they need to protect their symbols, but shouldn't they be a little more lax on alumni, boosters, and others that funnel money into the program and money that built the empire that symbol embodies? My question was more of an interesting look at maybe not being so stingy against people that file with them that have connections and can prove it, not overall business sense. But like I said before, when it comes to Nike, Coca Cola, and Golden Flake, I totally understand maximizing the brand and creating cash flow.

It's the world of money. If you invented something first and had a patent on it, wouldn't you want to be paid if someone else used your idea/thoughts/sweat/output to make money? A copyright is similar in that you create something that represents who you are. If alumni/boosters were given special rates, what would stop someone from finding an alum to set up a shell organization so they didn't have to pay to use the symbols? Sometimes you have to play hardball with the little guy to make your point.

 

[utstnx]

ok so....I understand you can not use the script A logo for sure. It is copyrighted and registered. However are the Letters U and A copyrighted? Can you copyright 2 letters? can we get some more details ono the "item" you want to sell?

 

[Jseakin]

Not quite ready to put it out there just yet but hopefully soon and I'll definitely share it here to get some feedback from everyone. I'd rather not now as I haven't quite nailed down the display/packaging just yet.

 

[OldPlayer]

ok so....I understand you can not use the script A logo for sure. It is copyrighted and registered. However are the Letters U and A copyrighted? Can you copyright 2 letters? can we get some more details ono the "item" you want to sell?

You can't copyright letters (UA could represent U of Alabama, U of Arizona, Under Armour), but the letters with specific colors and fonts can be copyrighted. Anything that gives the impression or appearance that it is involved/approved/affiliated with Alabama is a no-no.