The argument he has pushed the hardest barely exceeds a kindergartner’s “liar, liar, pants on fire,” mantra.
The world of intellectual property is complex, and the exact information on who owns what is not easily accessible. Combine those facts with us old-timers who came of age before Universities had monetized all aspects of their existence, and there is lots of room for confusion.
I think Matt Jones has exercised his first amendment rights to the max showing his displeasure with JMI’s nutlock on UK symbols, but I think Jones knows the law on it.
Is Jones at legal risk for complaining about the legal exercise of private contractual rights? Probably not, as JMI would have to show economic loss resulting from the speech.
Someone (maybe the gorilla) linked examples of tv ads where specific university symbols have been cleverly hidden or removed from several different university footprints. Now, I’m watching this ish, real carefully because it’s an interesting area of law I have never focused on.
There is a billboard I saw last night with a Kentucky FB player in a blue jersey with the “Ke . . .” visible, but the rest of the word covered by the hand/football. I wondered if the image was skillfully done that way to avoid licensing complications.
Last edited:
