Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
We get a lot of questions here about if it's OK to sell t-shirts with pictures of celebrities on them. The supreme court seems to say it's not ok.
I just found this article today. It's from a Supreme Court case from 2001 where an artist was selling "Three Stooges" t-shirts of his original lithograph artwork bearing likenesses of the comic trio.
Supreme Court rules Three Stooges T-shirts are not protected art
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney
We get a lot of questions here about if it's OK to sell t-shirts with pictures of celebrities on them. The supreme court seems to say it's not ok.
I just found this article today. It's from a Supreme Court case from 2001 where an artist was selling "Three Stooges" t-shirts of his original lithograph artwork bearing likenesses of the comic trio.
Supreme Court rules Three Stooges T-shirts are not protected art
Some interesting quotes in the article from the reactions of the judges. Definitely worth a read.
This isn't legal advice Just passing along something I found.
What i've always found to be very interesting is the people who want to profit off someone else's image AND ask if it's OK or legal usually know the answer before they ask the question. ABSOLUTELY. We're not talking about writing newspapers or magazines and issuing some commentary on the persons actions or endeavors, but rather slapping that person's persona on a poster and selling the poster. And though we all know many of the so called 'news magazines' are doing the same thing when they put Britney Spears, or Tiger on the cover, that paper or mag gets to argue that it was really about the commentary that accompanied it. I'm not even saying you should or should not do it. I'm just saying don't pretend you don't already know and ask if it's OK.
Great post Rodney!
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
I guess it makes sense, since tabloids/world weekly news/the onion (the onion being a satire on the former) get away not only with the images, but also the yellow journalistic style stories to accompany them!
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
Quote:
I'm just saying don't pretend you don't already know and ask if it's OK.
Actually, a LOT of people really don't know if it's OK or not.
What seems like common knowledge to one person can be something completely new to another.
It's not really a black and white area (even the quotes from the judges in the case seem to indicate that), so it's understandable that the question pops up quite a bit.
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
After reading the article (particularly the second one) I am still curious as to where parody would fall... it specifically mentions satirists, but doesn't go into any detail about whether or not there is still a line that can be differentiated, or simply "all celebrity images, period".
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwrunyon
After reading the article (particularly the second one) I am still curious as to where parody would fall... it specifically mentions satirists, but doesn't go into any detail about whether or not there is still a line that can be differentiated, or simply "all celebrity images, period".
I admit the line is blurry, but putting a picture of someone on a shirt is different than a caricature of that same person. The caricature is commentary. I'm not a lawyer, but I have slept at Holiday Inn.
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney
Supreme Court rules Three Stooges T-shirts are not protected art
Keep in mind that this was the California Supreme Court, making a decision based on California law granting a right to publicity. Due to the power of the entertainment industry in that state, it is by far the most vigorous in protecting the right to publicity. In many other states, the right does not even exist.
There is also no federal law regarding such right. In fact, the issue on the federal level is whether or not states' right to publicity provisions violate the US Constitution.
This article states: "Zimmerman cites a 2000 lawsuit Tiger Woods brought against the sports artist Rick Rush for selling prints of a painting he had made of Woods winning the Masters, and another suit brought a year later by the heirs of the Three Stooges against Gary Saderup..."
It's interesting that he would mention these two cases in the same point, considering the fact that the court decisions in these cases were absolute opposites. Woods claimed that Rush's paintings violated his right to publicity, granted by the common law of the state of Ohio, where the paintings were produced. In this case, the federal Circuit Court ruled that Rush's First Amendment rights trumped any right to publicity that Woods might have had. [Art Law Handbook.]
The Wikipedia entry on "personality rights" sums it up quite well. It says there is a "significant body of case law which suggest two potentially contradictory positions with respect to recognition of the Right of Publicity."
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
Thanks for bringing these articles to our attention Rodney.
Jeff pointed out that where the suit was filed may make a difference in the outcome - i.e. which state law applies. Apparently the 'Tiger Woods' case was filed in Ohio as that's where the art was created. The "Stooges" case was filed in California, presumably because the plaintiffs were there and/or the art was created there.
Of course it isn't a simple issue. There are differences in these artists' intentions for producing their works - the 'Stooges' image appears to be a lifelike portrait done in charcoal, whereas the 'Tiger Woods' image includes more than the golfer's face and is part of a series representing "significant historic moments in sports".
However, with the differences in state laws, I'm wondering if the 'Stooges' shirt can be sold outside of California, possibly with a statement on each shirt that says "Not for Sale in California".
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
The stooges also have a licensing agreement with Art Brands creating transfers for t-shirts. They might have been the ones reporting the issue to the stooges reps. and getting the ball rolling.
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwrunyon
After reading the article (particularly the second one) I am still curious as to where parody would fall... it specifically mentions satirists, but doesn't go into any detail about whether or not there is still a line that can be differentiated, or simply "all celebrity images, period".
If you do a search for starbucks here in the forums, you'll find a link to a lawsuit that covers parody.
Since this lawsuit wasn't about parody, it didn't mention it at all. But there are other lawsuits out there that cover that that you can research.
In the starbucks lawsuit, an artist lost the case even though his design was considered parody by the court. He could parody starbucks in his "art", but when it came to merchandise for sale, they denied the parody claim and ruled in favor of starbucks.
Again, this isn't legal advice. If you're thinking of going the route of selling celebrity or parody images, you should be talking to a lawyer for paid advice.
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
Quote:
Well, I'd have to sell enough of em to have the money to pay for said advice to begin with!
Or you could see the investment in a lawyer as an investment in your peace of mind and an investment in the security of your business and monetary welfare.
Quote:
I suppose one could always hope for a simple cease and desist, no?
Re: Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling...
I wonder if Andy Warhole bought the rights to Cambell's soup and Marlyn Monroe?? What is Pop Art? I was on Etsy.com and a guy was making David Lynch T-shirts among other things. And they are fantastic. I'm sure he doesn't have the rights to these images but I feel like the shirts are so cool and if anything make these images popular. I just wish I could make shirts of scenes of movies that I'm a huge fan of. I'm just a fan who wants other peolpe to know it. isn't it Pop Art?
This is a discussion about Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling... that was posted in the General T-Shirt Selling Discussion section of the forums.
Selling celebrity images on t-shirts not protected: supreme court ruling... 
Just passing along something I found.
Ah... circular conundrums 
