Jeff Jampol has written a brilliant response to a Lefsetz Letter criticizing The Doors’ licensing deal with Converse. If you have any interest in the thought processes involved in the licensing of iconic band imagery, or the way licensing works or doesn’t work, this is a must read.
According to Jeff:
…we see the music and the name somewhat differently – they are BOTH important to us, but to me, there are degrees of sanctity, if you will, when it comes to marketing and promoting The Doors’ legacy: the most sacrosanct thing that exists is the music. Next in this hierarchy is Jim’s poetry (which is owned by the Morrison successors), then the name “The Doors,” followed by the photos and images, and last but not least, the individual members themselves.”
The Doors decided long ago (way before MY time) that apparel was an acceptable category in which to license The Doors’ name, and acceptable to market, sell and promote, not only to enhance their legacy, but to make a profit as well (we like to do that – we are not a nonprofit organization).
One of The Doors’ Chuck Taylors: