[KobeJames]

Thought you all would find this very interesting development here reported on ESPN

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/122180...-copyright

Going to be real fascinating to see how this plays out.

[altz11]

Wow. Yea I'd say that photographer is gonna get paid BIG TIME!!

Those jump man images are nearly identical. I don't see how Nike will win this case if the photographer does indeed own that image. He'll probably settle for a boat load of cash.
Very interesting, thanks for posting.

[jeremy7269]

Easy prediction......

Nike will give the photographer a take it or leave it settlement offer. Photographer's lawyer will recommend to take the settlement. This never reaches a courtroom.

[creativemunky]

Photographer doesnt stand a chance. It is NOT the photo referenced in the logo.

THIS IS the photo that was used to create the Jumpman logo:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1985-Nike-Michae...339ccb3e84

[altz11]

Yes, that was the photo used for the jumpman logo, but I believe the issue is HOW Nike came up with the IMAGE or "silhouette" I think was the word used. And both images are damn near identical, of course the nike image was tweaked a little bit.

[creativemunky]

Still no contest.
Im an artist. Just because something is "close" does not mean you can sue unless it is an already established and recognized design/brand.
The have proof that the image was not used for the logo. As long as the photographer for the Nike 1985 card got paid, there is no contest. Case in point: You dont see Shepard Fairey suing people over designing similar logos/posters that look like the 2008 Hope Obama poster do you?

[newfiecomicguy1]

I'm not sure what to say, I guess it's up to whatever the legal system decides. The original guy should deserve some credit but seriously did the logo make that big a difference in the final sales? I doubt it, any cool Jordan pose would have worked....it is a cool symbol though lol

[altz11]

Well I just randomly googled this case and read that the judge dismissed the case stating (in a nutshell) the two photos are not close enough in similarities.
Another point that was brought up in this case was the fact that the photographer waited so long to bring it up.
So the photographer loses!

I really thought he had a chance, the two pics are almost identical imo.

[bryandwells1]

thanks for the update!

[jonathani]

Photographer doesnt stand a chance. It is NOT the photo referenced in the logo.

THIS IS the photo that was used to create the Jumpman logo:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1985-Nike-Michae...339ccb3e84

And how many of us had that poster thumbtacked to our bedroom walls as kids? Just imagine if you'd bought two and kept one in the original plastic. Wow. No one thought of those things back in the 1980s.