Nike Sued Over Michael Jordan Logo

Reasonable Doubt

Senior member
Nov 18, 2009
698
2
81
Nike Sued Over Michael Jordan Logo
Updated: January 23, 2015, 10:37 PM ET
By Darren Rovell | ESPN.com


The life of the most successful sneaker franchise of all time is at risk, as a photographer is accusing Nike of using his work to make its famous "Jumpman" logo of Michael Jordan's silhouette
nba_g_jordan_b1_300x200.jpg

Jacobus Rentmeester's original photo of Michael Jordan, which he says was the genesis for Nike's Jumpman logo.

Jacobus Rentmeester is suing Nike in federal court in Oregon for copyright infringement. Not only is he asking for profits associated with the Jordan brand, which generated $3.2 billion in retail sales in 2014, but he also is seeking to halt current sales and plans for the brand's future.

Rentmeester says he took a picture of Jordan in his Olympic warm-ups in 1984 for an issue of Life Magazine. After it was published, Nike's Peter Moore, who designed the first Air Jordans, paid $150 for temporary use of Rentmeester's slides. Rentmeester says Nike used his photo to recreate the shot with Jordan in Bulls gear with the Chicago skyline in the background, but that it was essentially still his work.

"Mr. Rentmeester created the pose, inspired by a ballet technique known as a 'grand jete,' a long horizontal jump during which a dancer performs splits in mid-air," the lawsuit says. "The pose, while conceived to make it appear that Mr. Jordan was in the process of a dunk, was not reflective of Mr. Jordan's natural jump or dunking style."

The suit claims Rentmeester directed Jordan, who practiced the desired leap, an unnatural move for the star because he typically held the ball with his right hand. Jordan, the suit claims, backed up the idea that it was indeed a ballet move in a 1997 interview with Hoop Magazine.

nba_e_jordan12_300x200.jpg

Silhouette comparisons of Jacobus Rentmeester's photo of Michael Jordan, left, and Nike's Jumpman logo, right.
Rentmeester said that in March 1985 -- after threatening to sue the shoe and apparel brand -- he granted Nike use of the Jordan logo for two years on billboards and posters in North America, for which he was paid $15,000. The Jumpman image also was featured as a tag on the Air Jordan I shoes, which sold for $65 a pair.

The Jumpman logo first appeared on the Air Jordan with the third version in 1987, the first shoe conceived by legendary designer Tinker Hatfield. The company has since trademarked various versions of the logo -- in 1989, '92 and '98.

For his part, Rentmeester hasn't addressed the alleged infringement expeditiously, given that it's almost 28 years after that two-year contract would have expired.

In the suit, Rentmeester claims it was he, not Life Magazine, who remained the owner of the picture, but he noted that the photo was registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the first time just last month.

Nike spokesman Greg Rossiter told The Associated Press that the company is not commenting on the lawsuit.

Federal copyright law allows people to bring copyright claims within three years of an infringing act. But in May 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in a similar copyright case ruled that delay in filing a copyright claim isn't a bar to seeking damages as long as the copyright infringement continues.

That case, Petrella v. MGM, concerns the screenplay to the 1980 movie "Raging Bull,'' co-written and sold by Frank Petrella, whose daughter sued MGM in 2009 seeking royalties from continuing commercial use of the film. Petrella's claim fell within the three years, the court ruled, because the studio continued to release the film on DVD and other formats for years and every new release essentially reset the clock for copyright purposes.

In 1984, Nike signed Jordan to a five-year deal worth a total of $2.5 million, a record for a shoe deal at the time. In order to protect the company, Nike included a clause that stated if he didn't accomplish one of three things -- win rookie of the year, become an All-Star or average 20 points per game -- in his first three years, it could end the deal two years early. Nike sold $100 million worth of the Air Jordan Is in the first year of the deal.


http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12218091/photographer-sues-nike-michael-jordan-photo-copyright
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,246
207
106
That case, Petrella v. MGM, concerns the screenplay to the 1980 movie "Raging Bull,'' co-written and sold by Frank Petrella, whose daughter sued MGM in 2009 seeking royalties from continuing commercial use of the film. Petrella's claim fell within the three years, the court ruled, because the studio continued to release the film on DVD and other formats for years and every new release essentially reset the clock for copyright purposes.

So Rentmeester is looking at a cut of the last three years' profits on everything that used Jumpman. Not bad.
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,584
762
136
LOL Seems to me that it was Michael Jordan that "created the pose" and should have a right to let Nike use his image as he sees fit.
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,246
207
106
^^ That was my first thought, but it really hinges on whether they have enough proof of this
"Mr. Rentmeester created the pose, inspired by a ballet technique known as a 'grand jete,' a long horizontal jump during which a dancer performs splits in mid-air," the lawsuit says. "The pose, while conceived to make it appear that Mr. Jordan was in the process of a dunk, was not reflective of Mr. Jordan's natural jump or dunking style."

The suit claims Rentmeester directed Jordan, who practiced the desired leap, an unnatural move for the star because he typically held the ball with his right hand.
to make the court buy it. That Nike previously paid him for the use of the logo will also be in his favor.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
The Jordan Ballerina picture is simply iconic and trademarked by Jordan from a Nike shoot I believe. This lawsuit simply won't hold up. Jordan has a trademark on his likeness and won't let Nike not use it. He loves money. Simply that.
 

Rakehellion

Lifer
Jan 15, 2013
12,181
35
91
^^ That was my first thought, but it really hinges on whether they have enough proof of this to make the court buy it. That Nike previously paid him for the use of the logo will also be in his favor.

They paid him for temporary use of the image. Then they paid him again for another temporary use.
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
They paid him for temporary use of the image. Then they paid him again for another temporary use.



Yea sounded like a BS case but based on the temporary rights they paid more than once and the Petrella v. MGM case listed above seems like a good case.
Either Nike will try to just bury him in briefs and drag it out or settle if they are smart.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Given that the following are true,
*Jordan doesn't actually dunk like that
*Original pose like that was taken by Rentmeester
*Nike paid for use of the pose... twice
*The May 2014 SC case is being applied correctly, allowing this lawsuit
*Nike is continuing to use the pose

this is a slam dunk case. :)

I'd bet Nike settles out of court for a pretty hefty sum, but based in part on what they had been paying for the rights to use that pose.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,854
4,803
136
Feeling that a lawsuit is without merit seems to be a recurring trend among people being sued.
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
Isn't it a little late for this?


The case above says since they keep using it on different items it keeps resetting the clock. So if he sued before it may have been thrown out but seems to have a good case now.
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,584
762
136
Jordan didn't take the picture and doesn't own the copyright.

Note that neither Jordon nor Nike used "the picture". The argument seems to be that because he took the picture, he somehow "owns" the pose (and any poses that even resemble it).

Maybe Nike will give him another $15k just to go away again.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
The Jordan Ballerina picture is simply iconic and trademarked by Jordan from a Nike shoot I believe. This lawsuit simply won't hold up. Jordan has a trademark on his likeness and won't let Nike not use it. He loves money. Simply that.

Yeah. He loves money so much that he refused to pay his father's ransom money.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Note that neither Jordon nor Nike used "the picture". The argument seems to be that because he took the picture, he somehow "owns" the pose (and any poses that even resemble it).

Maybe Nike will give him another $15k just to go away again.

Exactly. You can't sue someone for fucking imitating your work. Or at least you shouldn't be able to. Nike clearly used the photo as a starting point, but then made aesthetic improvements to it.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,536
1,100
126
Exactly. You can't sue someone for fucking imitating your work. Or at least you shouldn't be able to. Nike clearly used the photo as a starting point, but then made aesthetic improvements to it.

Then that is a flagrant copyright violation. If you use a copyrighted work as the basis of your design it is called a derivative and YOU MUST have permission make such derivative work.

The design Nike used is clearly a derivative of the original work. They are going to lose and lose hard.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
Exactly. You can't sue someone for fucking imitating your work. Or at least you shouldn't be able to. Nike clearly used the photo as a starting point, but then made aesthetic improvements to it.

um yes you can,

see Apple vs everyone else in the smart phone world
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Feeling that a lawsuit is without merit seems to be a recurring trend among people being sued.

Apparently, it's in chapter 1 of corporate law. "When being sued, the first thing you, as the company's lawyer should say is 'We feel the lawsuit is without merit.'"


This is a slam dunk case.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
69,734
13,351
126
www.betteroff.ca
Wow what a retarded lawsuit.

If I take a picture of an eagle can I sue the USA because they use it in some logos?

Also photos of real life things should be exempt from copyright. If I take a picture of a person or a building I should not automatically own the rights to that object. Someone else should be able to stand behind me and take the same picture and not be sued for it or make a drawing of the same scene etc.

But this stupidity does not stop here. It's supposedly illegal to take pictures of the Eiffel tower, because the tower itself is copyrighted, or some BS like that. I don't know how enforced it is though, you see plenty of pics of it online.
 
Last edited:

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,997
126
Then that is a flagrant copyright violation. If you use a copyrighted work as the basis of your design it is called a derivative and YOU MUST have permission make such derivative work.

The design Nike used is clearly a derivative of the original work. They are going to lose and lose hard.

Yeah, he owns their ass. But Nike is not going to lose, they're going to settle. Filing the suit just forces them to the negotiating table.
 

Rakehellion

Lifer
Jan 15, 2013
12,181
35
91
Apparently, it's in chapter 1 of corporate law. "When being sued, the first thing you, as the company's lawyer should say is 'We feel the lawsuit is without merit.'"


This is a slam dunk case.

Exactly. If you slip up and say "well, we kinda ripped them off a little but..." that statement WILL be used in court as admission of guilt. Never admit any wrongdoing ever. Only the judge should say who's right and wrong.