Snkrs Day, Matt Halfhill mentioned in lawsuit<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nWhile from a bird’s eye view it may appear to be a classic case of copyright trolling, there is some pretty damaging evidence against Nike brought about in the lawsuit filed last week.<\/p>\n
Rentmeester photographed Michael Jordan as part of a special section LIFE\u00a0magazine<\/em> published for the 1984 Summer Olympics as part of a 22 page “American Excellence” photo essay piece in the magazine.<\/p>\nIn the suit, Rentmeester describes how he conceptualized the pose of Michael Jordan doing what is now known in popular culture as doing the “Jumpman pose.” \u00a0Inspired by a ballet move called the\u00a0“grand jet\u00e9,” Jordan would perform out of his norm in a number of ways. \u00a0For starters, the pose calls for the subject to jump vertically and spread their legs outward at the apex of the leap – something that is far from a standard “basketball move.” \u00a0Secondly, the pose calls for the subject to hold the ball in their left hand – Michael Jordan is right-handed.<\/p>\n
Further details pulled straight from the lawsuit are listed below:<\/p>\n
Over approximately one half hour, Mr. Jordan practiced leaping according to Mr. Rentmeester’s instructions. The pose differed substantially from Mr. Jordan’s natural jumps, during gameplay or otherwise (for instance, Mr. Jordan typically held the basketball with his right hand), and required practice and repeated attempts. Mr. Jordan was enthusiastic and a quick study.<\/p>\n
Mr. Rentmeester photographed Jordan at the apex of his “grand jet\u00e9” leaps, using a Hasselblad camera with 6x6cm film, with powerful strobe lights that required specialty outdoor electricity generators to power. The large strobe lights allowed Mr. Rentmeester to photograph Mr. Jordan with the sun shining directly into the lens, creating a sharp and compelling silhouette of Mr. Jordan against a contrasting clear sky.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Also included in the suit is a copy of the invoice for $150 Renmeester submitted to Nike addressed to Peter Moore. \u00a0At the time, Peter Moore was\u00a0a Creative Director at Nike and is creditted with designing the Air Jordan 1. \u00a0Peter Moore later moved on to be a leading charge in Adidas’ refocussed and restrategized branding efforts in the US and eventually became the President of Adidas America.<\/p>\nNike Air Jordan with Jumpman Hangtag from 1985<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nWhile, statistically speaking, this will likely be settled in some form or another outside of the courtroom, Peter Moore’s direct involvement, communication, and transactions with Rentmeester will likely be the most damaging for Nike’s side of the argument. \u00a0It is pretty evident that someone at Nike saw the photo of Jordan doing the pose in LIFE magazine and wanted to recreate it for their own use.<\/p>\n
The situation is terribly complicated, but what the courts and attorneys for both sides will need to determine is whether or not a “concept” of a pose is something that one can copyright. \u00a0To further complicate the matter of damages if a decision is main in favor of the plaintiff, the US Supreme Court has recently ruled in what some legal experts are calling “legislation from the bench” extending the statute of limitations on damages from three years to an infinite amount of time depending on the circumstances.<\/p>\n
In the end, where is a line drawn?<\/p>\n
Was the initial concept of Michael Jordan leaping vertically and spreading his legs out something introduced by Rentmeester, it appears so, but does that mean that he can own claim to anything associated with such move over the rest of Michael Jordan’s playing and business career? \u00a0What about fellow photographers who photographed players such as Shawn Kemp and Blake Griffin doing the Jumpman pose? \u00a0Should Rentmeester be entitled to profits from that since the players were doing the pose because MJ did it?<\/p>\nShawn Kemp does “Jumpman” pose in 1996 NBA All-Star Game<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nShould the person who gave Michael Jordan his first basketball or teacher who encouraged him to pick up the game be entitled to it too? \u00a0There is no end in sight on this slippery slope.<\/p>\n
Had Nike created the Jordan logo from a silhouette of Rentmeester’s photo, I could see there being a case in his favor, but that isn’t the situation. \u00a0The Jordan Jumpman logo was a silhouette from a photo taken by Nike at a Nike photoshoot.<\/p>\n
If Jacobus Rentmeester was the rightful and legal owner over such an iconic and popular logo, why is it only now that a claim is being made?<\/p>\n
The nature in which this case has been brought about as the Air Jordan line\u00a0celebrates 30 years of continued success and dominance should not be overshadowed in any way, shape, or form by a lawsuit as much of a reach\u00a0as this one.<\/p>\nSilhouette of Michael Jordan from 1984 LIFE magazine photo vs. 1985 Nike photo<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Nike\u00a0is facing a lawsuit brought forth by a photographer claiming to own rights to the iconic Jordan “Jumpman” logo, but…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":149,"featured_media":587216,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[1225452],"cultivate_rss":[],"class_list":{"2":"type-post"},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Opinion: Lawsuit Over Jordan Logo Is A Reach, Frivolous<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n