Lawrence G. Townsend Intellectual Property Lawyer
Schedule a consultation
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter

Nike Jumpman Soars Over Copyright Claim

News and Notes Focused on the 3 Public Faces of IP Law

  • Brand Image Protection - Trademark Law
  • Visual Image Protection - Copyright Law
  • Personal Image Protection - Right of Publicity Law

The Image Protection Law blog has been created in order to share stories and information on the legal aspects of: 1) the marketplace reputation of a company or product captured in its trademark, 2) published or publicly-displayed artwork, photography, and any created visual design, and 3) use of a person's photograph or likeness for product promotion or other commercial purposes.

The "IP3" share at least one thing in common: Image is everything. In these posts let's look at what that means in the realm of intellectual property in the news, but let's also be prepared to explore if there's something more beyond "everything." Don't forget, the intellectual in "intellectual property" doesn't mean smart or brainy, although by nature true creators often are. The word is used to refer to any creation, i.e., a "product of the mind." While this blog will be regularly updated, you are encouraged to share your thoughts on these posts.


Brand Image and Visual Image Protection: Trademark law protects Nike's famous Jumpman logo of Michael Jordan (above right), and copyright law protects the rights of the photographer who shot the photograph (above left) upon which the logo was based. So which wins in a race to the rim? In the case of Rentmeester v. Nike Inc. (DC Ore), the logo ended up on top, while the photo infringement claim was rejected.

Jacobus Rentmeester shot the Jordan photo for Life magazine in 1984. Nike licensed the image for two years, but then in 1987 it created its own image of Jumpman. Rentmeester complained in 1987, but did not sue. With so much time having gone by, it seemed that the threat of a copyright infringement suit came and went. But them the Supreme Court in Petrella v. MGM, 572 U.S. __ (2014) ruled last year that it was never too late to sue for copyright; only damages are limited to the last three years. 

However, on June 17, 2015 the case was tossed on a motion to dismiss, the court finding that the image, boiled down, consisted only of a human pose, and only if the two images are "virtual identical" could there be copyright infringement. For example, there's no lighting detail in what ultimately is only a silhouette image; thus, the range of expression to be copied in the pose "idea" is very limited. The court had no trouble finding, in a comparison of the two images, that they were not virtually identical.

By setting up a screen that filtered out most of the expressive elements of the photograph and daring to do what it did in using only the remaining self-evident similar elements, Nike adhered its own advice: Just Do It. 

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Contact Me to Discuss Your Specific Concerns

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy