[Clipart] celebrity image

Mohamed Ibrahim mibrahim at mibrahim.net
Mon Dec 31 13:40:00 PST 2007

Reporters take pictures of actors & actresses and post it all over the 
newspapers & web without their consent, actually sometimes the pictures 
are in an undesirable situations for them - yet they get posted.

I think it is enough to show a disclaimer may be like what wikipedia 
does in a clear box:

I also suggest to add a check box for the uploader that states the the 
uploader did
not **significantly** alter the image from its original source. Images 
has to be altered in order
to change its format from raster to vectors. However, there were 
situations like this:

when CBS altered an image in a way they thought people would like it 
more by making Katie look thinner. She didn't like it and was in the 
news headlines for a couple of days even though she worked for CBS for a 
period of time.

So my opinion is to allow addition of celebrity images. If adding the 
check box is a trouble then may be vectorizing & cliparting of 
celebrity/people images should be outlined in the policy.

Happy new year to all of you,
Mohamed Ibrahim

Greg Bulmash wrote:
> Perhaps there needs to be a special warning on such pages, stating that 
> while the image itself is public domain with respect to copyright, 
> images of famous people carry other restrictions and you should consult 
> an attorney before using it in commercial projects.
> I don't believe that such images should be rejected, because they do 
> have a lot of legitimate uses.  But beyond a "consult an attorney" 
> disclaimer, I don't know how much more you can do.  Heck, most people 
> still write in and ask for permission to use the images because they 
> won't RTFM.
> You could put up 50 point blinking red letters, and some people would 
> miss them.
> Add the disclaimer to the image description/page, and let it go.
> John Olsen wrote:
>> This is one of those fuzzy areas of the law still being sorted out.   
>> In the US it is perfectly acceptable for an artist to create a  
>> recognizable image of another person.  One court decision excerpt:  
>> "The court held that Sections 50 and 51 had no application because an  
>> "artist may make a work of art that includes a recognizable likeness  
>> of a person without her or his written consent and sell at least a  
>> limited number of copies thereof" without violating the statute. The  
>> court also declared in dicta that works of art, including sculptures,  
>> were deserving of First Amendment protection that superseded the right  
>> of privacy."
>> The only problem I see is in use by someone taking the image from  
>> here.  If the image was used for publicity purposes or to make money  
>> based on the fame of the person, then the user would be in violation.  
>> It might be easy enough to solve this by renaming the file with a  
>> vague name - "Hollywood actress" or just "Sandra".  Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/clipart/attachments/20071231/9b168512/attachment.html>

More information about the clipart mailing list