I doubt the "they told us to do it" line would absolve them of any responsibility in a court.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 fair
Your inferiority complex is very amusing, I must say.🐷🐷
Shamrock Rovers- Where trophies are won and envy is scarce
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).
Trading on a famous person's image is something entirely differently.
I don't know.
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)
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.
Went up to Saratoga, where my horse naturally won.
It's allowed in this case. But only if they play on grass.
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.
Buttimer says no. What was the question again?
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.
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.
JealousYou 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
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks