The jist is Jordan is suing a supermarket for using his likeness in an ad for steaks in S.I.
What is the dfference between this and a google ad next to Jordans picture on any number of web pages?
The Google ads aren't using Jordan's likeness?
You dont think so?
There are ads on this page (not google ads but ads) that is using Jordan's likeness. ESPN is getting paid advertisement revenue specifically built around M. Jordan. You do not think ESPN is using Micheal Jordan likeness to make money?
I have no idea. I'm proposing that as a possible answer based on what you are saying.
There are ads on this page (not google ads but ads) that is using Jordan's likeness. ESPN is getting paid advertisement revenue specifically built around M. Jordan. You do not think ESPN is using Micheal Jordan likeness to make money?
I have no idea. I'm proposing that as a possible answer based on what you are saying.
There are ads on this page (not google ads but ads) that is using Jordan's likeness. ESPN is getting paid advertisement revenue specifically built around M. Jordan. You do not think ESPN is using Micheal Jordan likeness to make money?
I have adblocking software so I can't see what ads you are talking about.
But clarify this for me: Do the ads include Michael Jordan, or are they just placed next to pictures of Michael Jordan?
Because if it's the latter, then the ads are not using Michael Jordan's likeness.
I'll refine my question. What is the difference between a webpage using Jordan's likeness while collecting ad revenue for it and ad using Jordan's likeness? I create a website about M. Jordan and I sell ad space. I making money on M. Jordan and so is every advertiser who pays me.
Thats what you pay a spokesman for though, the explicit endorsement. That's why when the company did that w/o permission it was bad, but simple proximity is not an explicit endorsement and is mot a violation
Fine? Maybe. It is, however, very clear. Making an ad that contains Jordans image, with a quote from Jordan, directly related to a product is an endorsement, or in this case a false endorsement, which is a very different thing from an ad appearing on a webpage.
In googles case, or even a Jordan fansite, they aren't profiting or being endorsed by anything Jordan is specifically doing, but by the search engine or fansites own thing. Is that bringing information about Michael Jordan? Yep. Fair use, public personalities, etc and more cover this. Neither of them makes any particular claim to Jordan supporting their websie or whatever. This supermarket did. Like your like specified, Jordan asked for 2.5m and the ad could have run 10m
Do you think MTGSalvation is misappropriating Hasbro's intellectual property with this fansite, a scenario equivalent to the one you proposed in post 6? They have MTG's likeness/Jordans likeness prominently portrayed and they are making money off of ad revenue, after all.
There's a few "fine lines" with fair use and the like with using someone's image. Equally, there's some of the old problems with "fan related works." Early in the internet age if you used any trademarks or likenesses, lawyers were paid to send cease and desist letter to internet sites. Then marketing people found out that people making "fan sites" like MTG Salvation made their products money, so they stopped sending cease and desist letters and actually go as far as to pander to some of these sites like with exclusive previews and the like.
The major thing here is really the person, company, and what their own individual gain is. For example, a squatter that owns www.michaeljordan.com will be able to resell it for a high amount of money for the domain name and there's nothing else Michael Jordan can do as there are a lot of Michael Jordan's out there in the real world. Now a person who makes a fan site that does sell ad space isn't going to get sent a cease and desist letter because that's mostly free advertising and fair use of Mr. Jordan's likeness. This is no different than an unauthorized biography. The only people losing out are pictures and the like, but those tend to be really specific whenever people are making direct cash monies off of the pictures. This is no different than say MTG Salvation using the tap symbol and mana symbol and other trademarks by WotC. Since it's used as an expression of game design and the like for a Magic site, MTG Salvation doesn't really get into the "suing realm." Now middle of the 1990's it was cute and funny for large companies to do so, but not today. Business practices are way different.
Where you have to look at really is what J. K. Rowling did to a person who tried to write a Harry Potter encyclopedia, and she and her publisher took the man to court and won. Whereas a wiki she doesn't even care about and there are many wiki's and her own Pottermore is a free website set up to encourage people to learn more about "Harry's world" to which she didn't profit from. Meanwhile, Rowling wrote her own encyclopedia a few years back.
Rowling seems to allow for fan fiction to occur, but whenever "Tanya Grotter" was published in Russia she tried to go after the parody and failed. Yet, she was able to stop the work from being published in the EU.
So her clear established limit is to either fly really under the radar and to not seek to profit of any of her intellectual property rights or else get sued.
Whereas Ann Rice hates all forms of fan fiction, and will force sites like fanfiction.net to take down fan fiction using her characters.
Now compare that to X-Files who had a strong fan fiction community back during the 1990's, and whenever one of their leading fan fiction writers died they named a character in the show after her.
Whereas H. P. Lovecraft actively encouraged others to use his materials with his blessing, and there are other such as Phillip Jose Farmer who wrote Riverworld that helped to get some fanfiction published.
So every brand has a different reputation with their fans, and have to be really careful where you draw the line and look at what others do very carefully.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
The jist is Jordan is suing a supermarket for using his likeness in an ad for steaks in S.I.
What is the dfference between this and a google ad next to Jordans picture on any number of web pages?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Art is life itself.
You dont think so?
There are ads on this page (not google ads but ads) that is using Jordan's likeness. ESPN is getting paid advertisement revenue specifically built around M. Jordan. You do not think ESPN is using Micheal Jordan likeness to make money?
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/1035/michael-jordan
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I have adblocking software so I can't see what ads you are talking about.
But clarify this for me: Do the ads include Michael Jordan, or are they just placed next to pictures of Michael Jordan?
Because if it's the latter, then the ads are not using Michael Jordan's likeness.
I'll refine my question. What is the difference between a webpage using Jordan's likeness while collecting ad revenue for it and ad using Jordan's likeness? I create a website about M. Jordan and I sell ad space. I making money on M. Jordan and so is every advertiser who pays me.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Itd be equally silly to try and argue about the ads on this website somehow infringeing Hasbro
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
In googles case, or even a Jordan fansite, they aren't profiting or being endorsed by anything Jordan is specifically doing, but by the search engine or fansites own thing. Is that bringing information about Michael Jordan? Yep. Fair use, public personalities, etc and more cover this. Neither of them makes any particular claim to Jordan supporting their websie or whatever. This supermarket did. Like your like specified, Jordan asked for 2.5m and the ad could have run 10m
Do you think MTGSalvation is misappropriating Hasbro's intellectual property with this fansite, a scenario equivalent to the one you proposed in post 6? They have MTG's likeness/Jordans likeness prominently portrayed and they are making money off of ad revenue, after all.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The major thing here is really the person, company, and what their own individual gain is. For example, a squatter that owns www.michaeljordan.com will be able to resell it for a high amount of money for the domain name and there's nothing else Michael Jordan can do as there are a lot of Michael Jordan's out there in the real world. Now a person who makes a fan site that does sell ad space isn't going to get sent a cease and desist letter because that's mostly free advertising and fair use of Mr. Jordan's likeness. This is no different than an unauthorized biography. The only people losing out are pictures and the like, but those tend to be really specific whenever people are making direct cash monies off of the pictures. This is no different than say MTG Salvation using the tap symbol and mana symbol and other trademarks by WotC. Since it's used as an expression of game design and the like for a Magic site, MTG Salvation doesn't really get into the "suing realm." Now middle of the 1990's it was cute and funny for large companies to do so, but not today. Business practices are way different.
Where you have to look at really is what J. K. Rowling did to a person who tried to write a Harry Potter encyclopedia, and she and her publisher took the man to court and won. Whereas a wiki she doesn't even care about and there are many wiki's and her own Pottermore is a free website set up to encourage people to learn more about "Harry's world" to which she didn't profit from. Meanwhile, Rowling wrote her own encyclopedia a few years back.
Rowling seems to allow for fan fiction to occur, but whenever "Tanya Grotter" was published in Russia she tried to go after the parody and failed. Yet, she was able to stop the work from being published in the EU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter
So her clear established limit is to either fly really under the radar and to not seek to profit of any of her intellectual property rights or else get sued.
Whereas Ann Rice hates all forms of fan fiction, and will force sites like fanfiction.net to take down fan fiction using her characters.
Now compare that to X-Files who had a strong fan fiction community back during the 1990's, and whenever one of their leading fan fiction writers died they named a character in the show after her.
Whereas H. P. Lovecraft actively encouraged others to use his materials with his blessing, and there are other such as Phillip Jose Farmer who wrote Riverworld that helped to get some fanfiction published.
So every brand has a different reputation with their fans, and have to be really careful where you draw the line and look at what others do very carefully.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>