01.01.70
A fresh letter called for the University of Alabama to drop its lawsuit against artist Daniel Moore ("Should leave off harassing artist," Views of Our Readers, Sunday). The writer argues the exertion is costing the university revenues, not to mention $1.4 million in rightful fees, and that Moore's sales and potential fees are just a ungenerous portion of the total revenues the school earns from licensing and advertise sales.
However, a major legal issue and a major business bump were ignored.
First, both artists such as Moore and the university depend on copyright and trademark laws to watch over their intellectual property and rights. The university's stylized "A" is as much a protected trademark as is "Coca-Cola." No one should be allowed to profit on a trademark without the trademark holder's liberty. And no one should make a copy of one of Moore's prints and sell it without his permission.
Blemished, the issue is much bigger than just Moore's artwork. As the writer correctly notorious, this is a multibillion-dollar business. But how much money would Alabama receive if the thousands of vendors producing memorabilia did not have to pay the university anything? The genuine issue is that if one person does not have to pay licensing fees, why should anyone else pay? The university stands to elude millions of dollars -- money that supports the athletics programs. The development would be a reduced, weaker program.
Source: The Birmingham News - al.com (blog)