Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Store ordered to pay $667,507 to KU Athletics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    To add to this, I have two buddies who have had their t-shirt designs ripped off by Sinks (the store owner). When I say ripped off, I mean, their exact art work was taken from the internet and put on his shirts. The minute details of the drawings are too similar to be coincidence. Sinks has stolen the artwork of KU students and used them on shirts for his profit. Of course, being poor college students, they don't have the money or the time to really do anything about it.

    Sinks has had numerous warnings from KU to stop selling only the shirts that were determined to be 'over the line.' Sinks chose to continue seling them. KU was within its right to stop this kind of infringement. They did not use cheap lawyers. Sinks now gets to pay those legal fees.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkpl68bfCtM

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Indy23
      Sinks now gets to pay those legal fees.
      ... he's probably already filed for bankruptcy.
      "You Just Want to Slap The #### Outta Some People"

      Comment


      • #18
        Indy I still dont see how a shirt that says Kansas on it specifically means KU. I believe your story but the students designs arent what the trial was about. Most of the KU alum I have talked too think KU went to far!
        I have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

        Comment


        • #19
          As I stated above, even though the shirts on the racks behind him are OBVIOUSLY copyright infringing, the red KAN>.. shirt was deemed as infringing as well.

          The man was wrong, and I am sorry if that wasn't clear. But at the same time, if that shirt is one that is included along with the blue shirts with KU inspired graphics, sayings, and likeness, is somewhat troubling.

          He had numerous opportunities to stop, and probably figured the court case would end in only a cease and desist. He probably already has a separate bank account that he pays his "managerial salary" to and will file bankruptcy shortly.

          Comment


          • #20
            Just a guess, but I doubt the store owner is going to hold up a shirt that is going to help make KU's point. The article said that jurors found 53 of 206 items to be infringement. Whether we agree or not with that on the particular item he's holding up, I bet the item is much closer to #53 on the list than #1.

            The initial award was $127,000 in July 2008. Only after he continued to sell the disputed shirts did KU go after triple his profits (not KU's $2 million in licensing revenues) and $1.4 million in attorney fees. The judge denied that. The $667,507 award included a portion of KU's attorney fees and the original $127,000.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kcshocker11
              Indy I still dont see how a shirt that says Kansas on it specifically means KU. I believe your story but the students designs arent what the trial was about. Most of the KU alum I have talked too think KU went to far!
              The shirts don't need to specifically mention KU for it to still be an infringement of copyright laws. Many of the shirts obviously refer to KU, Mangino, Kerry Meier, Todd Reesing, Cole Aldrich, Bill Self, the rock chalk chant and other KU themes and trademarks. As others have pointed out, only about 25% of the shirts went over the line.

              You're correct that Sinks' theft of student art has nothing to do with this case, but I mentioned it because a lot of people picture him as the 'little guy just trying to make a living.' He's a greedy little goober that steals other people's artwork and lies about it when presented with the orignial material.

              As you point out, there are definitely some KU folks who support Sinks, or at least don't understand why it's important for KU to protect its licensing revenues. The penalties were high, but he had many opportunities to end this process a long time ago without such a high fee.
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkpl68bfCtM

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ShockTalk
                Just a guess, but I doubt the store owner is going to hold up a shirt that is going to help make KU's point. The article said that jurors found 53 of 206 items to be infringement. Whether we agree or not with that on the particular item he's holding up, I bet the item is much closer to #53 on the list than #1.

                The initial award was $127,000 in July 2008. Only after he continued to sell the disputed shirts did KU go after triple his profits (not KU's $2 million in licensing revenues) and $1.4 million in attorney fees. The judge denied that. The $667,507 award included a portion of KU's attorney fees and the original $127,000.
                TITCR.

                This wasn't a contract dispute that will result in actual damages. There was no contract.

                This is all out copyright infringement. Punitive damages are assessed. At a certain point, after all other measures fail, the absolute crippling of the business becomes the goal. In other words, the money is probably only a secondary concern to KU; they'd be happy if this place just closed its doors.

                This company handles KU's licensing, as well as 179 other schools. I'd bet they played a part in KU's case. I also know that these places have some legal dogs that make their living tearing places like Sinks to shreds. Places like Sinks don't stand a chance.

                Funny thing is, places like Sinks will keep cropping up.
                The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.

                Comment


                • #23
                  If there is a buck to be made, someone will try to figure out a way to get it.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X