There are a lot of legalities involved. You should consult with an intellectual property attorney before proceeding.I'm planning to screen print a few sweatshirts which include celebrity faces on them.
It is illegal unless you are licensed by the appropriate IP owners.Is that legal or does it need some kind of authorisation?
Some of it is probably legal, some of it is probably illegal.I've seen them being sold at market stalls
Out of curiosity, why do you think this way?and I cant imagine them going through any legal processes.
I think Tim answered your question here.If you photograph or illustrate a celeb and they're in the public domain, I don't see why you couldn't use that on a shirt design.
Politicians are fair game, why not other famous people?
Am I wrong?
Actually I asked this question awhile back that if I as a photographer took a picture of a famous person (I own the pic since I took it) then can I as a printer use my own photo on a shirt and sell it....the answer was NO.All people (regardless if they are famous or not) have Right of Publicity, which grants them the exclusive right to profit off their own name and likeness. So to use someone's name and likeness requires license or permission from the person (or estate if they are deceased). One common exception to this is the use of political figures. While they are technically allowed to sue for violation of publicity rights, they generally do not for concerns of damaging their reputation.
"Public domain" does not refer to public figures, it refers to works that are not covered by intellectual property rights.If you photograph or illustrate a celeb and they're in the public domain, I don't see why you couldn't use that on a shirt design.
Politicians are not fair game. They still have right of publicity just like anyone else. They just choose to not pursue legal action when their rights are violated. But they in no way officially waive their legal rights.Politicians are fair game, why not other famous people?
From a copyright perspective, there are laws regarding derivative works, parody and fair use. None of which actually makes using copyrighted images legal, but they offer you a legal defense if you are sued for infringement.Would it make any difference if the image was modified?
Very true. But I'm a sucker for it every time.This question gets done to death three times a week
The answer may be a short & simple "no," but I like to give some reasoning and information behind the answer. Personally, I think that's what this forum is all about.the answer's short & simple.
Dave & TimVery true. But I'm a sucker for it every time.
The answer may be a short & simple "no," but I like to give some reasoning and information behind the answer. Personally, I think that's what this forum is all about.
David.....I think that's a excellent idea, even if it's just a quick reference that could be linked to along with a reply to the OP...since there are so many questions maybe Rodney would even make it a featured topic.I got bored of answering the same question about exposure time so I wrote and posted an article here, then you can just refer the questioner to it. Perhaps Tim would like to take it on?
Thanks, Dave. I would love to read your exogesis on using celebrity likenesses.I got bored of answering the same question about exposure time so I wrote and posted an article here, then you can just refer the questioner to it. Perhaps Tim would like to take it on?
