Possibly the demise of the "Jumpman" logo.

911
359
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
PORTLAND, Ore. -- A photographer is accusing Nike of violating the copyright of his 1984 image of Michael Jordansoaring toward a basketball hoop by continuing to use the image to market shoes and clothes.Jacobus Rentmeester of New York City filed the lawsuit against Oregon-based Nike Inc. on Thursday in federal court in Portland, Oregon. He's seeking unspecified monetary damages, profits generated from the image, and an injunction preventing further copyright infringement.Rentmeester staged and shot the photo for Life magazine as part of a special section published for the 1984 Summer Olympics. As a freelancer, he retained rights to the copyright. Nike later paid him $150 for temporary use of two transparencies of the photo.According to the complaint, Nike then produced a nearly identical photograph of Jordan and reproduced it on billboards, and when Rentmeester threatened litigation, the Oregon company paid him $15,000 for a limited license to use the image for two years.The complaint says Nike continued to reproduce the photo after that period and used it to create the distinctive "Jumpman" logo, a silhouette of the leaping Jordan inspired by the photograph. The company went on to create the Jordan Brand division, which markets Michael Jordan products using the photo and the logo.The lawsuit says Nike has earned millions as a result of these marketing campaigns.Nike spokesman Greg Rossiter said the company is not commenting on the lawsuit.It's unclear why Rentmeester waited nearly three decades to file a claim. He registered the Jordan photo with the U.S. Copyright Office in December 2014.Neither the photographer nor his lawyer returned calls for comment.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.
 
Man this fool waits 30 yrs to say something.  He is worst than the women accusing bill cosby.

LMAO

this will be interesting. Dude ain't gonna get the jump man back but I could see him getting a check.
 
Yea, 30 decades later this dude just trying to get some retirement money to buy a private island....

Why would you wait thirty years to file claim? Smh

Regardless nike probably going to give him the money to stay quiet
 
Last edited:
Man this fool waits 30 yrs to say something.  He is worst than the women accusing bill cosby.

the women accusing bill cosby were PAID to do so! i believe all of those accusations are completely FALSE!

as for this situation, i hope mr. rentmeester doesn't settle for some undisclosed amount. hopefully he takes it all the way and retains ownership of the logo and it leads to the demise of the jordan brand. and cripples nike to the point where they are no longer the global leader and as a result they have to get back to putting the consumer 1st. delusions of grandeur, i know. :lol:


(but, i ain't eem joking about the cosby situation tho)
 
Last edited:
 
Man this fool waits 30 yrs to say something.  He is worst than the women accusing bill cosby.
roll.gif
 
But if you read the article, he has approached and negotiated with nike a few times already. He didn't wait 30 years.
 
how are you gonna get money then come back later and cry about it. greedy MF. I don't like nike but I don't want this guy to get another dime
 
Hopefully  JB can bring back the WC3 in true OG form with synthetic leather, off grey elephant print and jumpman on back before this happens
 
This guy better lawyer the F up. Filing a claim against a multibillion company like Nike who can afford the best lawyers in the World takes balls.
 
I doubt he copyrighted the pose anyways isn't it just the photo? this is cofusing
 
Last edited:
I'm sure this will go away soon. He and Nike will end up settling out of court. He'll get a check upon agreement that he disappears and that'll be the end of that. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
His claim is likely estopped by laches, but Nike may just give him a couple mil just to shut up and go away. Either that, or they could bury him in legal fees until he gives up. Such is life. The Jordan Brand will go on regardless.
 
how are you gonna get money then come back later and cry about it. greedy MF. I don't like nike but I don't want this guy to get another dime
It says in tha original post first payment was 150 for temporary use of tha image, 2nd time was for 15k for a limited license for 2 year use. Not like this guy is jus huggin them for money nonstop.
 
This guys an idiot. He should have pulled a World Wildlife Foundation and continued litigation. By continuing, Nike would've settled out of court decades ago. They won't give him a dime now because of his long gap of absence. Nike ftw.
 
He will get a check... hefty one too it's made the Internet and even on ESPN... NIKE just wants to sweep this under the rug.
 
I would wait too after I've done business with someone and they failed to honor the contract

wait for em to be worth billions and teach em a very expensive lesson

take all their money and force em to use nike air

yall sound weak for taking jbs side
 
Last edited:
If it means putting a stop to mediocre retros and forcing JB to innovate with new products then good!
 
you can copyright an image of someone else?? and then basically sue that person who the image is of for using it??
eek.gif
 what????
 
His claim is likely estopped by laches, but Nike may just give him a couple mil just to shut up and go away. Either that, or they could bury him in legal fees until he gives up. Such is life. The Jordan Brand will go on regardless.
It's not estopped. He had prior contracts with nike for use of the logo. Their use exceeded those terms.
 
i think nike will win simply because the logo was definitely inspired by the pic but its not EXACTLY the same so...
 
Back
Top Bottom