- 8,070
- 5,047
Wow, and here my dumbass thought the logo was conceived from the free throw dunk at the dunk contest. I learned something today. Thanks.
Possibly the demise of the "Jumpman" logo.
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by the antihype,
- Start date
- 557
- 135
at some of the responses so far.. This lawsuit would do nothing to improve the quality of shoes.. If anything it could make them worse if they have to pay out on this and end up making their profit percentages back by cutting corners..
I think there is a lot more to this story/situation than is being reported, but interesting to think that one of the most iconic logo's out there is potentially being used illegally. Curious why Nike wouldn't have just bought the logo and/or trademarked it (I'm sure it is to a certain degree), but seems like there is some grey area around this..
- 2,283
- 6,415
I wonder what will be MJ's take on this...
- 2,268
- 796
Easiest question ever asked on this site. His take will be whatever saves him the most money.
- 2,283
- 6,415
Easiest answer ever answered incorrectly on this site. I assume you mean what makes him make the most money since MJ is not the one being sued. This is regarding his jumpman logo and how he would defend Nike. Since he was asked to take the pic of the jumpman, would he be unpleased that someone can just possibly making money on his name due to a lawsuit? Does MJ need to give him permission for his pic to be copyrighted especially he let Nike take a somewhat of a similar photo? What if the person is correct, and does not want to officially give up the copyrights to Nike unless Nike really pays up or if not at all? I'm not an expert on copyright infringement.
Last edited:
- 571
- 126
LOL imagine this guy going up against both Nike and MJ. Good luck with that...
- 2,268
- 796
LOL you know he owns a stake in Jordan Brand right. You know NIKE will defer any court costs to the JB side of the business. So my answer remains, whatever saves him the most money.
Dude has a case since Nike has already shown that they have licensed the picture.
- 2,268
- 796
Its not as much as an uphill battle as you guys make it seem. Nike has already paid him for licensed use in the past, now he needs to prove how they haven't been paying him since.. This will settle out of court cause Nike will lose
LOL imagine this guy going up against both Nike and MJ. Good luck with that...
- 2,283
- 6,415
So what MJ has a stake JB, MJ is still paid by NIKE. Nike pushing this on JB
are you kidding me. Nike cannot defer any cost to JB because the agreement was between the individual and NIKE, not JB. Nike will have to pay up not JB. So once again, it will affect MJ on how much he takes home annually. He probably won't be losing money necessarily, he will just be making less or still taking home what he supposed to take home. Nike would be stupid to push this to JB. If that happens, NIKE will be the loser at the end of this. We all know that Jordan has the highest sales (sneakers & clothing) of any athlete ever. Who will represent Nike like the way Jordan did?
- 2,268
- 796
You are showing your ignorance in your posts.So what MJ has a stake JB, MJ is still paid by NIKE. Nike pushing this on JBare you kidding me. Nike cannot defer any cost to JB because the agreement was between the individual and NIKE, not JB. Nike will have to pay up not JB. So once again, it will affect MJ on how much he takes home annually. He probably won't be losing money necessarily, he will just be making less or still taking home what he supposed to take home. Nike would be stupid to push this to JB. If that happens, NIKE will be the loser at the end of this. We all know that Jordan has the highest sales (sneakers & clothing) of any athlete ever. Who will represent Nike like the way Jordan did?
Nike owns JB but JB operates under a separate umbrella of the company. Each division of Nike has a cost centre which means it decides which area of the business makes money and which part of the business is paying out money. IE for a Jordan retro, JB pays for the shoe, and in turn receives payment. Nike does not pay for the shoe and let JB keep the payment.
If Nike gets sued and has to make a payment for this, it is in actuality the Jordan Brand that will have to pay for it internally. The Jumpman belongs to the Jordan entity so any licensing arrangements, settlements etc. are paid for by Jordan Brand (which is still owned by NIKE but has different operating expenses). So again if Nike gets sued, JB will have to defend or pay, and in turn it takes money out of MICHAEL JORDAN's pocket. If you don't understand what Im saying, then don't reply because I am definitely not the one who is wrong here.
- 2,283
- 6,415
Showing my ignorance please. Chill with the name calling. If you disagree, then you disagree. If you don't like my reply, keep it moving. It's just common sense. MJ will not lose money out his own pocket plain and simple. Although JB has the Jumpman, it was NIKE who violated not JB. JB did not come into existance until 1997-1998. JB gets part of the share on what it sells and most of it will go to NIKE. Nike is still the big fish. Why would JB pay for all the backpay from 1987 till now while all Jordan boxes still have Nike. It was NIKE who was ignoring the individual not JB. Hypothetically, Nike does push this towards JB, JB would decline because NIKE never let JB know that the logo belongs to someone else. JB won't pay a dime and should not for anything in this lawsuit (except for any licensing). I will like to see this in the court of law. Due to NIKE not notifying JB on the original owner of the logo who was never NIKE would void this lawsuit being pushed to JB. Done.
Last edited:
airthompson
Staff member
- 13,828
- 9,631
They'll pay the guy a couple mill, and up the prices to $200 this holiday to have the consumers make up their losses.
- 2,268
- 796
You're not understanding my post but replying.
Never said MJ would lose out of HIS POCKET. Jordan Brand as a company will take the loss (if they lose or payout), which in turn would mean MJ would feel the effect.
Wrong - Jordan Brand is its own company within Nike and they keep their profits.
Wrong again - Nike has already in the past paid dude for licensing. He wants more and will get something because they have already proven prior art.
Wrong - The Jordan Brand is the part of Nike which profits off the Jumpman logo. Nike as the company will push any costs towards the Jordan Brand.
JB makes profits off the shoes and apparel, they also have to eat the costs of doing business. And if they lose this lawsuit or settle out of court, it will obviously impact their bottom line and the profits that get fed to MJ. So my response to the simple question, is Michael Jordan will say whatever helps him keep more future earnings in his pocket.
- 2,283
- 6,415
All you said is that Jordan will keep future earnings in his pocket which I said in my initial reply plain and simple. It is what makes him the most money from my initial post (please re-read my first reply). All you trying is to give me a breakdown on what JB has with Nike which I already know. I'm just talking in a legal standpoint When this goes to court. If you feel any better, you win.
- 2,268
- 796
Thanks I do feel better. We can hug this one out later
- 2,283
- 6,415
- 420
- 208
Wrong on your 2nd point. JB doesn't keep all of the profit they earn, Nike will use a portion of JB's earnings to fund growth for their other product lines/businesses as well.
- 1,352
- 91
The photographer's picture was taken in 1984 when Jordan was going to the Olympics... This one was taken after to promote his sneakers. It's part of the lawsuit.
Nike really should just settle for 7 or 8 figures and keep it moving.
to be quite honest the logo on the left doesn't look bad at all... if Jordan Brand want to recreate the Jumpman logo, then the one on the left is it. it's like a modern Jumpman logo. pretty dope.
Last edited:
- 2,268
- 796
Sure I can go with that. But it doesn't change the point that they are their own entity within the larger Nike.
- 761
- 278
Nike responds to lawsuit. From espn.com:
Nike fired back in court this week in hopes of protecting the billions of dollars it has made off the most successful sports shoe franchise of all time.
Lawyers for the world's largest shoe and apparel brand on Monday filed both a motion to dismiss and a motion to prevent the brand from having to reveal specifics of its Jordan brand business as a result of a lawsuit filed by photographer Jacobus Rentmeester.
In January, Rentmeester sued Nike, claiming that it was his photograph -- taken of Jordan in a 1984 issue of Life magazine -- that was used without his permission for the creation of the Jordan logo, which became known as the Jumpman.
While Nike did not dispute that it paid Rentmeester for the temporary use of his photo shortly after signing Jordan to a shoe deal, the company asserted to the district court in Oregon that the photographer's claims are baseless because his photo and the Nike photograph that the Jordan silhouette is based on don't pass the legal standard of being "virtually identical."
"Rentmeester falls far short of that standard here given the significant -- and self-evident -- differences in mood, lighting, setting, expression, color, style and overall look and feel of his photograph, on the one hand, and Nike's photograph and logo on the other," Nike's lawyers wrote to the court.
Nike also asserted that Rentmeester's claim that the way he posed Jordan, like a ballet dancer, is problematic because poses themselves can't be copyrighted.
Full article here: http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=12503848&src=desktop
Nike fired back in court this week in hopes of protecting the billions of dollars it has made off the most successful sports shoe franchise of all time.
Lawyers for the world's largest shoe and apparel brand on Monday filed both a motion to dismiss and a motion to prevent the brand from having to reveal specifics of its Jordan brand business as a result of a lawsuit filed by photographer Jacobus Rentmeester.
In January, Rentmeester sued Nike, claiming that it was his photograph -- taken of Jordan in a 1984 issue of Life magazine -- that was used without his permission for the creation of the Jordan logo, which became known as the Jumpman.
While Nike did not dispute that it paid Rentmeester for the temporary use of his photo shortly after signing Jordan to a shoe deal, the company asserted to the district court in Oregon that the photographer's claims are baseless because his photo and the Nike photograph that the Jordan silhouette is based on don't pass the legal standard of being "virtually identical."
"Rentmeester falls far short of that standard here given the significant -- and self-evident -- differences in mood, lighting, setting, expression, color, style and overall look and feel of his photograph, on the one hand, and Nike's photograph and logo on the other," Nike's lawyers wrote to the court.
Nike also asserted that Rentmeester's claim that the way he posed Jordan, like a ballet dancer, is problematic because poses themselves can't be copyrighted.
Full article here: http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=12503848&src=desktop
- 5,941
- 1,296
just no lol. It's not TERRIBLE but come on.... that would kill the line. period. everything would seem like fakes
- 2,928
- 1,311
Any fool can see they clearly copied his original, whether it passes the legal definition of being "virtually identical" or not I can't say... but the overall mood, feel and look is definitely the same in layman terms.
If the roles were reversed and this guy had copied Nike's photo... you know full damn well they would have hit him with a lawsuit claiming it was identical so fast it would make his head spin.
With the full force of Nike's lawyers against him, I doubt he'll get any more than a small cash settlement, if that, but more power to him anyway.
If the roles were reversed and this guy had copied Nike's photo... you know full damn well they would have hit him with a lawsuit claiming it was identical so fast it would make his head spin.
With the full force of Nike's lawyers against him, I doubt he'll get any more than a small cash settlement, if that, but more power to him anyway.
Last edited:
- 3,362
- 1,108
stopped reading after "recreate the jumpman logo".
should've stopped reading after "the one on the left doesnt look bad at all."
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,771
You can see the resemblance but that's about it. Dude didn't even trademark it until recently.
At the end of the day, the 2 images are definitely different enough that they aren't considered identical. The biggest thing that catches your eye is that both images have jordan doing a scissors kick.
There would be so many lawsuits out there if you could sue for any variation or resemblance of a photo you took.
- 33,427
- 39,199
There's no doubt to me that Nike stole that guy's idea. They copied him and just refined it. They should pay. People cry on here about getting images stolen for little rinky dink stuff. Well, this is major thievery in my eyes. Call a spade a spade. This guy got his idea stolen. If it was any one of you, I know darn well you'd be angry you got jacked.
