Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (4809)	6/25/2003 10:26:54 AM
From: David Lawrence	Respond to of 12465

There is no doubt about commercialization in that case since it was about prints and not the original art.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (4809)	6/25/2003 10:33:10 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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