Nike has won in a lawsuit over the "Jumpman" logo for its Air Jordan brand. On Monday, the supreme court declined to hear a case brought up by a photographer who sued Nike for violating the copyright law.
In 1984, photographer Jacobus Rentmeester took a photo for Life Magazine of Jordan, a student at the University of North Carolina, the ball in his outstretched left hand, jumping towards an outdoor basket with his legs wide. Jordan wore his US Olympic team uniform and Converse sneakers in the photo. Time Magazine later ranked it among the most 100 influential images of all time. When Jordan left for college for the NBA later that year, he signed and sponsorship deal with Nike. Rentmeester says Nike copied "basically every original element" in the photo that the company used for an early marketing campaign with Jordan. The silhouette of the image became the logo for Nike's Air Jordan line, which reached more than $2.8 billion in sales last year.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/business/nike-michael-jordan-jumpman-logo-lawsuit/index.html
This article shows how time passes, and old things can be brought up. This lawsuit shows how people feel very protective of their art and ideas. I reported on this article because I think it is important to remember what goes on in this world and be aware of current issues. This article was published on March 25, 2019, and was made to inform people of art and people that created significant influences on eras.
I’m honestly not sure how I feel about the results of this lawsuit. I feel like while it is the photographer’s personal art, I can also see Nike’s side of the argument, as the logo simply uses the iconic photo of Jordan to market Jordan’s line. I need to think to think on this one ahh!
ReplyDelete-Ryan Mecca
It's a good lawsuit.Jordan is strictly signed with Nike.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if they had sued earlier there would've been a different outcome? Air Jordans have been made since the 80s.
ReplyDeleteNike is always going to come out on top.....it's Nike.
ReplyDeleteTime has definitely been let passed, and now seems as though the photographer is solely interested in gaining a quick fortune from the lawsuit.
ReplyDelete