[Clipart] celebrity image

[Leonardo Cunha]

Hi,

Greg, I have a question, maybe you can help me:
What about a drawing made in Inkscape based on a photograph? Not a
vectorized photo, but a drawing (made "line by line") based on a
photography. Would it be ok or a copyright violation?

If anyone can answer that, feel free to do.

Thanks in advance and sorry for my bad English.

Leonardo Cunha


2007/12/31, Greg Bulmash <oneminuteinspirations at gmail.com>:
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/clipart/attachments/20080102/257469ae/attachment.html>