Summary
This post examines the legal dispute between Nike and photographer Jacobus Rentmeester regarding the origin of the iconic Jumpman logo. Rentmeester claimed that Nike’s logo was copied from his photograph of Michael Jordan, originally taken for Life magazine in 1984. The US Federal Court found that the photograph was entitled to only thin copyright protection and that substantial differences existed between the two images. The court dismissed the copyright infringement suit, finding no violation by Nike. This analysis highlights the nuanced approach courts take in evaluating copyright claims related to creative expressions.
Background
Nike created the JUMPMAN edition of its footwear and apparel line in the 1980s following a commercial arrangement with basketball player Michael Jordan. The JUMPMAN logo depicts Jordan in a ballet-inspired jumping pose with a basketball, directed towards a basket. The logo has appeared on more than a million products and is widely recognised.
The Claim
In January 2015, American photographer Jacobus Rentmeester filed a suit alleging that Nike’s JUMPMAN logo was copied from a photograph he had taken of Jordan for a special edition of Life magazine in connection with the 1984 Summer Olympics. Rentmeester’s photograph showed Jordan jumping with the Chicago skyline in the background, in a pose that Rentmeester contended was substantially reproduced in the JUMPMAN logo.
Rentmeester argued that he retained copyright in the photograph despite having worked as a contracted photographer. Nike had paid him $150 for two transparencies, which were to be used solely for company presentations. Rentmeester contended that Nike had subsequently entered into a two-year licence agreement for use of the image but continued to use the photograph in advertisements and as the basis for the JUMPMAN logo after the licence expired. Rentmeester was not able to bring suit until December 18, 2014, the date of registration with the U.S. Copyright Office.
The Court’s Analysis
The U.S. Federal Court analysed both photographs and reached two conclusions. First, Rentmeester’s photograph was entitled only to thin copyright protection, given the limited number of ways in which the underlying idea — a basketball player jumping — could be expressed. Second, having stripped out the unprotected elements, the Court found that there were substantial differences between the two photographs. The Chicago skyline backdrop with red and purple tones in Rentmeester’s photograph differed from the grassy hill and blue sky in the JUMPMAN logo. The Court also noted that Michael Jordan’s pose itself differed between the two images.
Decision
The Court dismissed the suit, holding that no copyright infringement had taken place.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.