SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (4809)6/25/2003 10:33:10 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (1) of 12465
 
I note that even with the bar set as high as possible (for Tiger Woods), and despite the fact the painting was focused on commemorating an event (Tiger's win at the Masters) as opposed to just exploiting someone's good name for profit, was positive in nature (depicted Tiger surrounded by other tournament winners), and the artist has been doing this for 27 years (not an opportunistic amateur), the ruling was still only 2-1 in the painter's favor. I would think if Tiger were not famous, was depicted in a bad light, and the painter had had a contentious relationship with his subject, the court ruling may well have been different.

- Jeff
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News