I was curious does anyone know if your allowed to use a picture of a famous person who is in jail on a shirt? I wonder if they lose there right to there image while in jail.
No, I don't think they lose their right to publicity by being in jail.
So you wouldn't legally be able to use a celebrities image on merchandise for sale because they were incarcerated.
Rodney, its been stated many times on these forum pages that celebraties own the rights to their likeness and so unauthorized use of the image is not allowed.
How do independant photogs. ie Papparazzi take unsolicited celebraty pics. Sell those photos to magazines, papers etc for profit. Magazines publish those unsolicited photos for profit and skirt the authorization process. I mean if People can run a picture of best dressed and worst dressed certainly celebraties dont want to be publicized as worst anything. If image is everything how do those publications get away with what they do for profit? How do the Paparazzi able to profit from likeness sales?
Rodney, its been stated many times on these forum pages that celebraties own the rights to their likeness and so unauthorized use of the image is not allowed.
How do independant photogs. ie Papparazzi take unsolicited celebraty pics. Sell those photos to magazines, papers etc for profit. Magazines publish those unsolicited photos for profit and skirt the authorization process. I mean if People can run a picture of best dressed and worst dressed certainly celebraties dont want to be publicized as worst anything. If image is everything how do those publications get away with what they do for profit? How do the Paparazzi able to profit from likeness sales?
This has also been answered a few times ; it's a totally different thing.
For specifics, you'd want to look up the right to publicity laws or talk to a lawyer, but basically, the difference is "merchandise for sale" as opposed to "news reporting" (however thin the definition of "news" gets sometimes).
This has also been answered a few times ; it's a totally different thing.
For specifics, you'd want to look up the right to publicity laws or talk to a lawyer, but basically, the difference is "merchandise for sale" as opposed to "news reporting" (however thin the definition of "news" gets sometimes).
Yeah I know we have played this tune a couple different ways. A paparazzi isnt news reporting...just selling an opportune photo for profit. Maybe a t-shirt company could just call themselves a news reporting group and we publish not on paper bit on cotton. Who really knows!
. A paparazzi isnt news reporting...just selling an opportune photo for profit. Maybe a t-shirt company could just call themselves a news reporting group and we publish not on paper bit on cotton. Who really knows!
Still, selling the photo wouldn't be selling merchandise (like a t-shirt) for sale.
I think it's pretty clear But if you wanted a "definite" answer you'd probably want to talk to a lawyer.
The law attempts to strike a balance between an individual's right of publicity and free speech rights to permit specific uses of an individual's identity. One serious difficulty with relying upon First Amendment protection is the legal unpredictability of First Amendment rules. The First Amendment provides a hierarchy of protection under the newsworthiness exception depending upon how the individual's identity is being used. The greatest protection is provided for news, lesser protection is provided for entertainment and fiction and the least protection is available for advertising uses where a portrayal of a real person's identity is used to sell a product or service.
Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.
Still, selling the photo wouldn't be selling merchandise (like a t-shirt) for sale.
I see no difference in selling photos or a likeness on photo paper than a likeness on cotton. It generally isnt just a photo but the ability to mass produce such an image from a negative. I think those images are sold multiple times over probably as you stated under the shield of news reporting.
I see your point and examples but tend to think its fairly broad and undefined. Maybe not undefined but certainly unbalanced and a bit quirky. Anyway...I know we have tread this water before but it makes for good dialog and some interesting questions.
If that legally can get you by...its freakin MONEY!!!!!!! Well done Lewis!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It wouldn't
Quote:
I see no difference in selling photos or a likeness on photo paper than a likeness on cotton. It generally isnt just a photo but the ability to mass produce such an image from a negative. I think those images are sold multiple times over probably as you stated under the shield of news reporting.
And I'm sure if you had a lawyer and enough money, you could argue that opinion in court. But I think there's probably a better use of time and money, since it's already pretty defined that it's not allowed and there are so many other topics to cover.
Yep, it does seem a bit "quirky", but many laws seem that way.
I agree; just an amusing/relevant link. They actually create their own designs inspired by news stories. I doubt it would work as a legal work around (although there's a magazine in Melbourne published only in the form of posters glued to walls, so you never know when the definition might slowly be changed ).
can anyone answer this .
I have a design here on my desk of the glode medelist of the 1968 olympics , who rasied the Black power fist up , rather then him standing on a podium , he is standing over a speaker, has a hand draw, chalk out line ,,,, and in big letters in the background are the words "Hip Hop Stand UP ."
THis design is a take off of another bigger design done for ice cube to advertise his new cd , i liked the layout and contacted the designer about it , and just took one element from the over all design and did something else with it which looks hot to me. We have not closed the deal yet because im stilling doing my research on the rights to use this image .
He says that its cool because the way its laid out its not in its orginal format , its in a art colague format. .. etc.... He had the design in the Source Magazine, if adds to his case at all..
I believe the Ap Source is the group that took the picture would they be who i would go to or the family of the Late Tommie Smith (RIP) , or is this image in the public domain enough that no one really has rights to it ?
Prisoner on shirt? 
; it's a totally different thing. 
