Ninth Circuit Sides With Nike in Spat With Photographer Over Jordan Logo
The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday upheld a lower court that dismissed a copyright infringement case brought against Nike by a photographer who accused the company of ripping off his photograph of Michael Jordan when creating the "Jumpman" logo.
February 27, 2018 at 03:10 PM
3 minute read
A federal appellate court has upheld a decision tossing out a photographer's lawsuit claiming Nike Inc. infringed his copyright of a photograph of Michael Jordan when commissioning its own photo to design the “Jumpman” logo used on Jordan-branded shoes and apparel.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday affirmed a lower court decision that found Nike didn't infringe Jacobus Rentmeester's copyright to a photo of a picture he shot of Jordan when he was still a student at the University of North Carolina. Although the court found Rentmeester could claim a valid copyright to his image and a presumption that the similar Nike photo was the product of copying rather than independent creation, it further found that Rentmeester couldn't show that Nike copied enough of the protected expression from his photo to establish an unlawful appropriation.
Rentmeester's photo originally appeared in Life magazine as part of a photo essay featuring American athletes, who like Jordan, were set to compete in the 1984 Summer Olympic Games. Rentmeester had Jordan pose in a position based on ballet's grand jeté and chose to shoot Jordan on an isolated grassy knoll on UNC's campus with a whimsically high basket set in the background. Shortly after Rentmeester's photo was published in the magazine, Nike paid him $150 for a limited license to use transparencies of the image “for slide presentation only.”
Nike shot its own image of Jordan in a similar pose with the Chicago skyline in the background before it launched the wildly successful Air Jordan line of sneakers and apparel when Jordan played professionally for the Chicago Bulls.
In Tuesday's decision, Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford wrote that Rentmeester's photo is “undoubtedly entitled to broad rather than thin protection” because of the unconventional choices the photographer made in composing it. Still, he found the Nike photographer, who shot the photo that became the basis for the Jumpman logo “made his own distinct choices.”
“Those choices produced an image that differs from Rentmeester's photo in more than just minor details,” Watford wrote. “Nike's photographer made choices regarding selection and arrangement that produced an image unmistakably different from Rentmeester's photo in material details—disparities that no ordinary observer of the two works would be disposed to overlook.”
In a partial dissent, Ninth Circuit Judge John Owens wrote that he agreed with the majority in regard to the Jumpman logo, but he found the question of whether the Nike photo infringed upon Rentmeester's copyright was a fact-based issue better suited to be decided on summary judgment rather than at the motion to dismiss stage.
Rentmeester's lawyer, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein's Dean Harvey, didn't respond to a message Tuesday morning. Likewise, Nike's lawyer, Dale Cendali of Kirkland & Ellis, didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250