[Clipart] celebrity image

[Greg Bulmash]

Here's a start...

http://www.openclipart.org/wiki/Other_rights

- Greg


Jon Phillips wrote:
> 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