[Clipart] celebrity image

[Jon Phillips]

Yes, right, and this is also what was at the center of the case that got
dropped against Creative Commons most recently...

I think we should take every precaution to note that authors are
releasing content into the public domain but also that there are other
rights to be aware of...Greg, maybe you could take a shot at copying
this content over to our wiki and we can link to it near the public
domain dedication...although, the CC public domain dedication is going
to get some love in this area to so that it is more clear the diffs.
between copyright and other rights...

At the end of the day, thank goodness for dmca so we can have some safe
window to take down content that is infringing...

Jon

On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 17:06 -0800, Greg Bulmash wrote:
> Mohamed Ibrahim wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> As the person who built and managed the celebrity photo library for 
> IMDb.com for 5+ years, I'll address that.
> 
> Such photos are considered editorial use.  When used for news or 
> commentary, the celebrity's image (however good or bad) can be used.
> 
> I often had to deal with agents or managers saying "who authorized you 
> to post that photo?"
> 
> I'd reply that the photo was shot at a public event with paparazzi 
> present where their client had no reasonable expectation of privacy.  As 
> the photo was being used editorially, the First Amendment authorized us 
> to post it.
> 
> What we're talking about in the case of images on OCAL is the "right of 
> publicity"....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_publicity
> 
> It's not protected under copyright.  You're violating someone's personal 
> trademark.  It's also known under the legal concept of "passing off".
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off
> 
> California's Celebrities Rights Act was enacted to make these rights 
> transferrable, like a copyright, for 70 years after the celebrity's death.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrities_Rights_Act
> 
> This is what has allowed the estates of Marilyn Monroe, Princess Diana, 
> and Boris Karloff to sue people making t-shirts, collector plates, etc. 
> that bore their likenesses.
> 
> So, if I was writing an article on my blog about Sandra Bullock and used 
> the OCAL image for illustrative purposes, it would be fine.  If, like 
> Johnny Automatic pointed out, we put it up with the subhead of "Sandra 
> Bullock Loves OCAL", it would be an unauthorized endorsement and she 
> could sue.
> 
> > I think it is enough to show a disclaimer may be like what wikipedia 
> > does in a clear box:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CBSEveningNewsKatie.jpg
> 
> That's different as it is a copyrighted work that Wikipedia is claiming 
> it believes falls under fair use and does not actually address Katie 
> Couric's rights as an individual to exert some control over the use of 
> her image.  Instead, it addresses CBS's rights under copyright.
> 
> That's much more restrictive than an image that's public domain, but has 
> restrictions based on the rights of the individual depicted.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Again, a different matter.  That was a publicity photo, issued by her 
> employer.
> 
> A drawing or "work of art" depicting someone can veer toward the 
> idealized or grotesque with much more freedom because it's 
> known/expected to be the artists interpretation.  A photograph that is 
> issued without a warning that it's been altered is assumed to represent 
> a realistic depiction.
> 
> Secondly, since the photo was "official" from Katie's employer, it could 
> lead people to believe that Katie had approved or even instigated the 
> alterations and thus cause people to think she was vain, damaging her 
> reputation and costing her goodwill, much of that coming from the fact 
> that it's "official".
> 
> Neither issue of being a photo nor the issue of being an "officiall" 
> representation of someone are issues that I believe OCAL has to contend 
> with.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I think if it's a vectorized photo, there are issues that need to be 
> considered, such as whether the copyright owned by the photographer is 
> being violated.
> 
> But if it's a drawing and the copyright owner is the submitter, then the 
> main thing to do is warn the end user of the publicity rights issue.
> 
> - Greg
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
-- 
Jon Phillips

San Francisco, CA
USA PH 510.499.0894
jon at rejon.org
http://www.rejon.org

MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto
Jabber Chat: rejon at gristle.org
IRC: rejon at irc.freenode.net

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be
legal advice nor should they be relied upon as or represented to be
legal advice. Jon Phillips does not represent any organization through
this email address.