Case Summary
**Case Summary: Jacobus Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc.**
**Docket Number:** 6088521
**Court:** [Specify Court if known, e.g., U.S. District Court]
**Filing Date:** [Specify if known]
**Overview:**
Jacobus Rentmeester, a photographer, brought a lawsuit against Nike, Inc. over copyright infringement related to a famous image he captured in the 1980s. The case revolves around Rentmeester’s claim that Nike used his photograph without permission in a promotional campaign, particularly for its Air Jordan brand.
**Facts:**
1. **Original Work:** In 1984, Rentmeester photographed basketball player Michael Jordan executing a unique jump move, which later became iconic. This image was part of a photoshoot that Rentmeester conducted for a magazine.
2. **Nike's Use:** Nike allegedly used Rentmeester's photograph as inspiration for its own marketing materials, leading to the creation of its own visual representation of Jordan in a similar pose. This new image became widely associated with the Air Jordan line.
3. **Claims Made:** The plaintiff argues that Nike’s use of his original work without authorization constitutes copyright infringement. Rentmeester claims ownership of the photograph and seeks damages for the unauthorized use along with an injunction to prevent further use.
**Legal Issues:**
- Whether Rentmeester’s photograph is protected by copyright law.
- Whether Nike's promotional use constituted fair use or was infringing on Rentmeester's copyright.
- The extent of damages Rentmeester may be entitled to if Nike is found liable.
**Posture of the Case:**
The case has been in the litigation stage, with both parties filing motions and responses. Rentmeester's legal team is arguing for summary judgment on the grounds that Nike's usage does not qualify as fair use. Nike may counter by asserting that the new image is transformative and falls under protected fair use.
**Impact:**
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for copyright law, particularly in the context of fashion and marketing industries where original works are often adapted or referenced. It raises questions about the protection of artists’ rights against large corporations and the limits of fair use, especially when it involves iconic figures such as Michael Jordan.
**Conclusion:**
Jacobus Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc. underscores the ongoing tension between copyright protection and creative expression within commercial contexts. As the case progresses, it will be crucial to monitor its developments and implications for similar future cases involving artistic work and commercial use. Further hearings and potential rulings will determine the validity of Rentmeester’s claims against the widely recognized corporation.
(Note: Specific details, such as court names, judges, or hearing dates, should be added as appropriate or available.)