It's a good gag but it was also a gag made in the official press release by the club so don't give him too much credit
Printable View
It's a good gag but it was also a gag made in the official press release by the club so don't give him too much credit
I would say the length of time required to get a decision either way out of the Marley Estate on a proposal like this would be staggeringly long. So on that basis, I'm assuming they've haven't secured any image rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by David BOHie
Given that everyone who sees it automatically assumes form the image that its Bob Marley, then they clearly haven't changed it enough to be safe legally IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophizer
It's what is known in legal terms as 'passing off'. They're clearly trying to cash in on the Marley brand, even if they're using a character who is not Marley.
I think it’s the best bit of marketing ever done by a LOI club. I’ve had Canadian friends ask me about it and most of them plan to buy it. I’ll buy it too but not sure what I actually think about it.
Just tell them to buy it in their Canadian dollars and not those worthless Trump dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
I see that in their press release on their website. Be funny if they lifted it from here.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I feel dirty saying this but it is a great PR story and will probably sell a few jerseys as well.
Will look good in the first division in 2020 :) (Sorry couldn't help myself) :)
As already mentioned, Marley's name and image is guarded pretty seriously.
Did they actually get permission from his estate to use it? If so, well done, although that will see a chunk of the profits head to the estate too.
If not, they will be in legal trouble.
If it is all sorted legally, it's a fairly smart piece of business. Even if there is a bit of cringe about how tenuous the connection is, the money will more than negate that.
O'niells surely see most of the money made anyway?
I'm touched by everyones faith in O'Neills :D
You have to have jerseys to flog them.
Also there's as much chance of bob playing the opening of the new dalymount as there is that bohs sought permission from the estate.
There would be a kind of delicious irony about them being sued to death by the family of hipster jesus though.
I think it's an image in his likeness, and not actually an image of Bob himself. At least that's how I heard it described. It's also noticeable that neither Bohs nor O'neills have ever stated it's an image of Bob Marley. I think their official words were something like - "it's a nod to the musical history of dalymount".Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I'm sure it's all been planned to avoid any possible legal issues.
I don't know if that's necessarily enough to be honest. While the press release* doesn't say it's an image of Marley, it does mention Marley as part of Dalyer's musical history. And with rastafarian colours, it's hardly a reference Ozzy Osborne or Bob Geldof.
I actually like it though. I wouldn't be caught dead wearing it of course - and not just cos it's a Bohs jersey - but it's something really different which has gained a bit of traction. Fair dues to them. I just hope it doesn't lead to a whole load of unoriginal copies.
* - I genuinely didn't read it before posting my earlier joke - which means I don't know if it was there before I posted or not... But I presume it was. After all, Bohs would hardly plagiarise something. :)
Okay, I will be super negative and wum a little.......Like all hipsters, I think hipster club Bohs are a little short on integrity. Great marketing ploy alright and will bring in some extra money and interest from music fans , but surly Dalymount Park is known for other things than music gigs... like it being the home of Irish football. The club is trying to brand itself like an Irish St. Pauli, but where as it is a district of Hamburg is that is known for a history of anti-commercialization and the football club reflects that, Phibsborough is much different and 'normal'.
Also, lets not forget last year, Pats had Pieta house on their Jersey. Bohs have a money making scheme (which has little to do with football, but maybe it will get more people in the door as Dublin is full of hipsters). Nevermind also they employed convicted rapist Akinade to play up front for them. Very progressive by them.
.......
In saying that, its great to have something extra in league and some thinking outside the box. Overall , its always a good occasion that the news coverage is positive for Bohs and everyone
I wouldn't be so sure. There are repeated references to the fact that Marley played Dalymount in the press release, and nothing has been said or done by the club yet to say that it ISN'T Markley. They're going along with all the media references to it. So again - are they not guilt of 'passing off' by creating something that is presumed to be Marley for commercial gain ? Why else would a lot of people from around thw world look to buy the shirt except for the whole Marley thing ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophizer
If this becomes news around the world (which it sounds like it is) then it will come across the desk of the Marley Estate at some point. Bohs may well have taken legal advice on this, but you can bet whatever legal team the Marley Estate have access to would eat the Bohs' legal team for breakfast.
Also - the way these things sometimes work out legally is like fishing. You catch the fish on your hook, but let it run the line out a few times before you reel it in fully. The Marley Estate could wait until Bohs have sold a load of these before doing anything legally. By that stage Bohs would be fcuked as they'd already have taken in and probably spent most of the shirts income. In which position it would be a case of 'how much do we need to pay you to not break us?'.
It's still a great initiative btw, and the sort of creative thing all Irish clubs should be doing. I just hope Bohs haven't underestimated the legal risks involved.
Where do you draw the line between "an image in his likeness" and "an image of Bob himself"? Or, more important, where would a court draw the line, if it came to that? I think that question isn't trivial, and if neither Bohs nor O'Neills gave it adequate consideration, they may regret it in the long run. They're playing on the perception that it is Bob himself, so they would have a hard time arguing otherwise if they're dragged into court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophizer
Wouldn't it be O'Neills rather than Bohs who would bear the brunt of any potential legal breach though? They're the manufacturer after all. The football club usually only receives 10-15% of shirt sales money with the manufacturer keeping the vast majority. And O'Neills is a MUCH bigger company than Bohs so they'd have far more money to potentially lose in this scenario. Given that, i'm sure they have a legal team who's looked into this.Quote:
Originally Posted by EatYerGreens
O'Neills wouldn't face any legal issues. They've simply made the jersey requested by Bohs.
Not sure if it'd be that simple. Surely O'Neill's have sourced and/or used the image for example? There has to be some manner of responsibility there too.
(If the image is of Mob Barley, that's ok of course...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophizer
Bohs could say it's not Marley, but I am not sure how much of a defence it would be, or how realistically they can argue that they never imagined that anybody would think it was Marley's likeness on the shirt. The mention of Marley in the release, and the rastafarian colours, make it pretty hard to argue that it is all just a coincidence and completely unintended.
The idea of an LOI club in a High Court Case that isn't a winding up order probably counts as progress.
I doubt the "they told us to do it" line would absolve them of any responsibility in a court.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Does anyone actually know how these things work? I don't know much about this area but isn't there official libraries where companies (usually newspapers/magazines/websites) can go and find stock images and pay an amount to legally use the image in their newspaper etc? Maybe Bohs got the image from one of those libraries and paid a fee for it?
Presume we can look forward to the shamble rovers 2020 icon shirt (Pepper Pig maybe ��) and the club press release saying how the image is bigger and more "picturey" than any done before and will set the benchmark for shirts going forward. A nationwide tour advising other clubs on how to produce an icon image shirt is inevitable ��
Seriously, awful shirt but magnificent marketing initiative, generated massive coverage for the club, delighted our sponsors, (New) Jersey suppliers and will make a few bob.
The sort of thinking/initiative the League is often lacking.
There is stock imagery alright, but it's rarely of notable/famous people. (In fact, it tends to be the same people in various random poses. Think of a group around an office table pointing at a laptop - that kind of stuff)
I think you can buy the likes of Sportsfile imagery alright - this is how a lot of newspapers operate though I think. So the photographer has ready sales of his photos to the agency, and the agency have ready sales to publishers, typically at a flat rate. Means the purchaser gets a low price for a photo they can use lots of times, the photographer gets a steady price for each photo, and everyone's happy. But I can't see Marley having agency photos of himself out there; the more valuable your image rights, the more protective you are about them, and so I presume you control photographer rights to concerts, etc. (Marley is dead of course, but I presume there were photo agencies or something similar in the 70s)
Why does everyone hate O'Neill's?
It's mainly just Martin, to be fairQuote:
Originally Posted by Shearer
Your inferiority complex is very amusing, I must say.🐷🐷Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
Paying for use of a photo is one thing. The person who took the photo owns the copyright for that (depending on the context in which it was taken).Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophizer
Trading on a famous person's image is something entirely differently.
I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosophizer
If a business went to a printer looking for say 5000 flyers to be printed, and it turned out that there was a copyrighted photo on the flyer, I don't think the printer would be liable.
I might be wrong though, and it might not be a great analogy. I suppose that the kitmaker has a degree of involvement in the design of a kit than a printer wouldn't have with a flyer, and hard to believe that the question of royalties wouldn't have arisen.
Anyway, regardless of legal liability, it would be an issue they could do without.
TBTF we have no assets. Apparently it is s tribute to our last world cup player, Jimmy Aggry ( or his Da as a young man)Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Is this shirt actually pemisable to be used by a club given Law 4 restrictions of the Laws of the Game?
"When interpreting whether a slogan, statement or image is permissible, note should be taken of Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct), which requires the referee to take action against a player who is guilty of:
using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gesturesgesturing in a provocative, derisory or inflammatory way
Any slogan, statement or image which falls into any of these categories is not permitted.
Whilst ‘religious’ and ‘personal’ are relatively easily defined, ‘political’ is less clear but slogans, statements or images related to the following are not permitted:
any person(s), living or dead (unless part of the official competition name)"
Paging Anthony Buttimer to the thread.
It's allowed in this case. But only if they play on grass.
Buttimer says no. What was the question again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
The change to the Law was as a result of row over the 1916 embroidery on the Ireland kit and the inclusion of the poppy emblem on others. So I do think there is a question to be answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezeikial
Wow the passive bitterness on here is palpable. It's going to be the biggest selling LOI jersey ever . Get over it.I haven't seen anywhere online or in print where Bohs have released a statement saying they have a picture of Bob Marley on the jersey.
It could plausibly be kept in club shop for years to come and still sell well each year.
Sales have come in from the 4 corners of the globe .
The latest straw clutcher is stating that it's against the laws of the game. Who cares . It will still sell and be stocked in the shop. I don't think Joey in Canada is worried in the slightest if Bohs do or don't wear it 4 times next season.
It's brought massive PR to Bohs and also by default the league.Its the sort of brave out of the box thinking that the league needs as a whole . I've just order 2000 Rasta wigs to sell on the North Circular Rd
You're on one hand trying to claim Bohs never said it was Bob Marley and on the other calling others straw clutchers? Come off it. There isn't a judge in the world that will fall for that nonsense
Stop me when I start telling lies so micls and quote me the press release where Bohs as a club have said anything anywhere about the image referencing it to being Bob Marley. For a judge to fall for any nonsense it has to get to a court
This won't as ONeills are involved, a company with 800 staff and offices in multiple locations. They have also been down this road before with Addidas and won so their legal dept will have done their homework. Unless you are suggesting that such a company would on a whim from a part time football club leave themselves wide open to having their brand dragged through the courts..
Oh by the way, BFC are not obligated to tell the masses on various fora the intimate details of the commercial contracts
How much would that PR cost an average LOI club .
Stay jealous lads
Ah go on away with your whataboutery.
An image that one first glance the entire media world associates with Bob Marley, along with the colours of the Jersey. If the club have zero legal concerns at all, then why the deflecting pretending its not supposed to represent Bob Marley.
'But we didn't actually say it was Bob marley! We didn't say it was anyone'.
Whatever about whether the club know what they're doing, I'm sure they've looked into it, but that argument is utter ********. And if it were to come to a judge, you'd be laughed out of court with your 'show me where the club said....' rubbish. It's fooling literally no one.
Jealous :D You absolutely must be having a laugh.
Ashbohs prayer (loosely based on the narcissists prayer) :
Bohs never said it
But if they did its not a big deal
But if it is O Neills would have checked it
But if they did, Bohs don't have to tell you
And if they do, you're only jealous