Tiger Woods sues artist
torresD
Tiger Woods sues artist to draw a line between painting and profit
'Enormous constitutional issues at
stake' as top golfer launches lawsuit
Lawrence Donegan in San Francisco
Sunday July 7, 2002
The Observer
Rick Rush's paintings -
faithfully reproduced great sporting scenes -
might not be considered great art but no one
has ever argued they're not so much art as
illegal rip-offs masquerading as art.
No one, that is, except Tiger Woods,
who has taken the Alabama-based artist to court,
accusing him of exploiting his likeness for unlawful
commercial gain.
Sporting commentators would call it a
David versus Goliath battle;
the small-town painter against
the world's richest sportsman.
Lawyers and constitutional experts in the
US put the court case on an altogether higher
plane.
'There are enormous issues at stake about
an artist's freedom of speech under the
First Amendment of the Constitution,' says one.
'The issue is, can an artist freely create paintings
of great athletes in action and then sell them,
or must he pay for the right to paint that athlete?'
Standing on the sidelines is an array of
other interested parties, from the estates
of Frank Sinatra, Jimi Hendrix and Elvis Presley,
to the NFL Players' Association and a group
of America's most powerful media organisations,
including Time magazine and the New York Times.
'Mr Woods's extraordinary accomplishments
give rise to many benefits and a few burdens,'
the media organisations said last week in
a joint statement.
'One of the burdens, we submit,
is having to see himself depicted in words
and pictures by people who have things to
say about him.'
That may be so,
responds Woods's lawyer Terence Clark,
but what happens when the artist takes that painting,
mass-produces it and sells the reproductions to the public?
'When the painting is done and you hang
it on the wall, that is probably acceptable...
but when you commercialise that person's
image or likeness, you cross the line.
That's what has happened here.'
The case,
which is going through the appeals court system,
is the latest in a series of worldwide legal battles
over sports memorabilia and the increasingly valuable
'image rights' of celebrities.
Gary James
torresD wrote:
>
> http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750834,00.html
> Tiger Woods sues artist to draw a line between painting and profit
>
A new name comes to mind:
Tiger Sue Woods
or:
Pussy Sue Woods
Gordon
<gnjames...@yahoo.com> writes
probably make more money out of 'Commercialisation of their name or
image' than they do from direct sports earnings or winnings.
--
Gordon
Gary James
I haven't heard anything recently about Tiger's endorcement income,
but when he joined the pro tour in 1997 Nike gave him a 5 year $40
million contract.
I think he can afford to be a little lenient with the artists.
Gary James
El Castor wrote:
>
> Gary James <gnjames...@yahoo.com> yawned and blurted out:
>
> >
> >
> >Gordon wrote:
> >>
> >I haven't heard anything recently about Tiger's endorcement income,
> >but when he joined the pro tour in 1997 Nike gave him a 5 year $40
> >million contract.
> >
> >I think he can afford to be a little lenient with the artists.
>
> Just business, Gary. Relax.
>
> The British Open is coming up in about ten days. Golf is a great
> spectator sport. Check it out and watch Tiger kick some butt.
>
> Jeff
The only golf I ever watch is the Sunday of the Masters and the British
Open. The Masters because the course is beautiful and the British
open, when played at St Andrews, is a course where par means par.
They have bunkers 8 feet deep.
Tiger is an above average golfer. But he does not have the shot making
talents like Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Jones Palmer and Nicklaus. He has
three strengths:
(1) He always hits his tee shot straight so he does not have to make a
hard second shot. Which would be his undoing (2) He never chokes unlike
all other golfers. Which makes me wonder about the contents of his
water bottle. (3) He is lucky. And I would rather be lucky than good
any day.
Gordon
<justusc...@here.com> writes
>
>The British Open is coming up in about ten days. Golf is a great
>spectator sport. Check it out and watch Tiger kick some butt.
>
>Jeff
I'll be watching. last tournament I saw him in I thought he had
peaked, but maybe it was just a downward blip. :-)
--
Gordon
Gary Williams
> I think he can afford to be a little lenient with the artists.
He probably can _afford_ it, but the line is actually a little finer
than might appear at first glance. It's pretty well established that
you can't sell a person's likeness without his consent...that's why
photographers have model releases and Topps pays the players to put
their pictures on their bubble-gum-cards-without-the-bubble-gum. At
the same time, you _can_ sell newsworthy images, which is why
papparazzi make a living.
If the artist is selling paintings of "Tiger Woods hitting a golf
ball", he almost certainly can't do that. But if he's selling
paintings of "Tiger Woods hits from the rough on No. 1 at
Bethpage"...that might be a recreation of a newsworthy moment. Except
that if the artist wasn't there making the sketches personally, he
might have a problem with the copyright owner of the photograph from
which he worked.
Gary Williams
Gary James
wrote:
>Gary James <gnjames...@yahoo.com> yawned and blurted out:
>
>>
>>The only golf I ever watch is the Sunday of the Masters and the British
>>Open. The Masters because the course is beautiful and the British
>>open, when played at St Andrews, is a course where par means par.
>>They have bunkers 8 feet deep.
>>
>>Tiger is an above average golfer. But he does not have the shot making
>>talents like Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Jones Palmer and Nicklaus. He has
>>three strengths:
>>
>>(1) He always hits his tee shot straight so he does not have to make a
>>hard second shot. Which would be his undoing (2) He never chokes unlike
>>all other golfers. Which makes me wonder about the contents of his
>>water bottle. (3) He is lucky. And I would rather be lucky than good
>>any day.
>
>I guess I'd add that I've seen him make some great putts.
He misses few puts. But I don't miss many 10 foot putts on the
practice green. It's only when they count that I miss. Now if I
had about 30 mgs of Valium I bet I would make those, too.
>When it
>comes to choking, he reminds me of Joe Montana. Montana always rose to
>the occasion. The further behind the 49rs got, the better he played.
>As for what's in the water bottle, tsk tsk that you would say that. I
>don't think so. And lucky? Nope. No such thing. He's good. You should
>give him credit for it.
>
>Jeff
I do give him credit. But he is still the luckiest golfer I have ever
seen. This is no slander on him. Maybe God likes him.
Take a typical par five. Let's say 540 yards.
Tiger drives his tee shot 305 yards to the right of the fairway for a
good approach to the green. The ball hits a pebble as it lands and
bounces another 10 yards and ot the center of the fairway, straight at
the green. Now he is in the center of the fairway and 235 yards
from the green. Chances are a good 3 iron will put him on the
green with a good chance to make a birdie. The drive was talent but
the bounce was luck.
The other player hits his drive but only 300 yards. It hits a pebble
(or an alligator) and bounces into the rough where it comes to rest
at the truck of a tree between him and the green. A probable bogey.
Tiger has taken a two stroke lead.
And so it goes.
Gary James
El Castor wrote:
>
> >And so it goes.
>
> "Luck is of little moment to the great general, for it is under the
> control of his intellect and his judgment."
> Titus Livius
And being livius was just an historian rather than a general, he
should really know ;>
Gary Williams
> Tiger is an above average golfer. But he does not have the shot making
> talents like Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Jones Palmer and Nicklaus.
Dunno. In terms of championships won, Tiger is far ahead of where
Nicklaus--who in turn was, I think, ahead of the others--was _at the
same age_. If he continues to improve, he'll put the others in the
shade; if not, then you may be right.
I believe I've read that Nicklaus is a great admirer of Woods's game.
Gary Williams
Gary James
wrote:
I am an admirer of Woods' game. But I doubt Nicklaus is an admirer of
Woods. He has no class. Which is to say he has as much class as a
pro football player doing a jitterbug in the end zone.