Recently in right of publicity Category

March 4, 2010

Claiming Rights to NBA Player Nickname

TM_onas_jerebko.jpgMy nephew has come up with a new nickname for the NBA player Jonas Jerebko from Sweden ("The Swedish Eagle"). He and his buddy have come to games with a self designed t-shirt that sports an eagle-like bird with a ball in the talons and the jersey number of the player, player's name on the back like a jersey and the player's country flag, as well as cardboard wings and have generated a little publicity for themselves and their concept. Pictures of them have been on a couple of websites, a newspaper, jumbotron at the arena and television coverage of the game. Jerebko also has signed the cardboard wings with his name and an "aka The Swedish Eagle." They are in the process of obtaining a trademark so they can sell t-shirts or other marketing kitsch. No one has the title yet. Can they print the shirts before getting trademark for "The Swedish Eagle" concept? Do they need Jerebko's permission? NBA permission? Can they use the shirts without his name? Do my nephew and friend need a partnership or can they register under both names? The Dear Rich Staff isn't very good at forecasting the future, but one thing we can predict with some certainty is that as soon as the NBA is aware of your nephew's sale of merchandise with the player's name and number, they'll get their lawyers to fire off a letter demanding that he halt the activity. We could be wrong -- and they may prefer to wait and see if it goes away itself. But if we were in your nephew's position, we wouldn't file that trademark application. As nice as the imagery and nickname may be, people are buying the merchandise because of its association with the player -- the use of his name and number cinches the association. The NBA, along with the various teams, controls the rights to exploit the player for merchandising purposes. So, he's stepping on those rights and the NBA usually doesn't like it
But we thought up the nick name ... As we've pointed out before, creating a trademark does not give you exclusive trademark rights. You get the rights if the mark qualifies and if you use it in commerce. Your nephew's application may be granted (or maybe not...)  but he'll have a hard time using it if he combines it with any insignia or text that identifies the NBA or its players. He'll also have an uphill battle trying to stop others from using the name in connection with Jerebko. If your nephew avoids any mention of the player name or number or other team identifier, he may be able to get away with his use and sale of merchandise ... it's a little bit like the recent situation in New Orleans. But the bigger his operation becomes, the more likely he'll be to run into trouble.
March 3, 2010

Stopped Taking Photos Because of Photo Releases

agnes-release_me.jpgI work for a non-profit and my board members are obsessed with getting photo releases - but as they don't have a good one and they often want to photograph events with LOTS of people - they refrain from taking photos at all. I was under the impression that unless a photo was going to be sold, no release was needed. Is there a guideline that will enlighten both myself and my board about when photos and video that will be used for things like social media and newsletters require releases from their subjects?  I am afraid this question is going to lead to a "it varies from state to state" answer. Actually, the answer doesn't vary from state to state (and in any case the Dear Rich Staff would never do you like that!) By the way, you might get more out of reading this discussion or by having your nonprofit spring for this book.
You need a release if ...  A properly drafted release basically shields you from lawsuits over two things: (1) you're using someone's image to sell or endorse something; or (2) using the image in a way that harms the person --  it invades the person's privacy or defames the person or otherwise gets them so upset that they call a lawyer and go after the publisher of the photo and sometimes the photographer. 
You do not need a release if ... You do not need a release to use a person's name or image for informational purposes. An informational (or "editorial") purpose is anything that informs, educates, or expresses opinions protected as freedom of speech. So if you have a section of your website such as "About Our Members" or you include the images in your non-profit newsletter -- for example, "Members Protest Disney World Mouse Exploitation," then you wouldn't need a release. 
Finally ... although it doesn't have the full legal punch of a release, you can always prominently post your photo policy at group gatherings -- a statement such as "We'll be taking photos at our event and posting them at our website. If you don't wish to be included, please inform the photographer." 
 
January 12, 2010

Restaurant Celebrity Photos

Thumbnail image for iStock_000007560726XSmall.jpgDear Rich: If you snap a photo with a celebrity in your place of business can you then use that photo in a documentary to show that the business attracts celebrity patrons? We don't have a written release from the celebrities. The short answer is, "yes," assuming you have the photographer's permission. You should not use the photos in ads for the restaurant -- that is, implying the celebrity endorses the restaurant -- and you probably shouldn't use the celeb photos in ads for the documentary, either. But if you're using them within the documentary simply to show that the celebrity ate at the restaurant--and the celebrity was aware the photo was being taken (no hidden cameras)  -- there shouldn't be a problem. 
Some celebrities that the Dear Rich Staff has seen while eating in restaurants: James Mason (yes, we're old), Charles Nelson Reilly, Patti Smith, and Tom Cruise (when he was still married to Mimi Rogers -- although she wasn't eating with him which is too bad since we're big Mimi Rogers fans).   

For more information on copyright law, see my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
December 2, 2009

Using Trial Transcripts in Play

iStock_000003457183XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I'm a young aspiring playwright and am interested in writing a one act based on the transcript from a trial that took place earlier this year. The defendant was found guilty of misdemeanor manslaughter and I've received the transcript directly from the AG office. Can I use the transcript liberally (adding my own lines here and there but basically using what was actually said)? And then who is the play copyrighted to? Is it credited to me as the writer and "based on the transcript of..."? The Dear Rich Staff thinks you'll be able to pull it off (and hopes you give it a shot) but we can't guarantee freedom from legal liability. (We know that sounds legalese but it's the best we can do.)
We've been here before. We explored a similar issue last August regarding the Nuremberg Trials transcripts and we start with the same principles -- copyright does not protect spoken testimony, only fixed versions of that testimony. The 'author,' for copyright purposes is typically 'the fixer,' -- in this case the court reporter. And as we also noted, at least one case has held that court reporters are not authors of courtroom testimony because the mechanical process of transcribing does not demonstrate sufficient originality. We're unable to find any caselaw that grants Copyright in trial transcripts. Although laws currently exist providing common law rights to spoken statements, it's not clear whether they could be successfully asserted against you. If we were a betting blog, we'd bet that you would be okay -- under copyright law -- to use the transcripts. 
What about other legal theories? Are you in danger of defaming, invading anyone's privacy or infringing a right of publicity? As you're probably aware, many great plays have been based on trial transcripts, often years after the final gavel sounded -- for example, Inherit the Wind and The Crucible. Using a more current case may anger living participants especially if:  (1) you add additional dialogue that slanders an individual, (2) you include false facts (or facts not introduced as public evidence), or (3)  the trial is about someone famous and you use that fame as a basis for promoting your play. To further protect yourself, we recommend that you "fictionalize" the trial--for example, change the names and other identifying facts so that parties are not identifiable (this may be tricky if it is a locally publicized case). 
Who gets credit? You get credit as author, at least as to the original material you contribute and your organization of the material and stage directions. You have no obligation to attribute the source (and it may even be wise to avoid doing that if you've ficitonalized.) When registering the work at the copyright office, you would disclaim the material from the trial transcript.

To find out more about copyright infringement, see Stephen Fishman's book The Copyright Handbook: What Every Writer Needs to Know.
October 9, 2009

Sarah Palin: Calendar Girl

Palendar1.jpgDear Rich: I would like to make and sell a calendar at the same time as the forthcoming release of Sarah Palin's memoir. I have tentatively secured permission for a Palin photograph via Getty Images. As for the phrases "Sarah Palin" and "Going Rogue", which are owned presumably by Harper Collins the publisher: 1) How much would it cost to acquire permission from the publisher? 2) According to my research the process for permission is fairly simple. Is this correct? 3) Is a request like this common for a popular book on this scale? The short answer is don't bother asking for permission for your calendar. First, it's possible -- in a major publishing agreement like this --  that the publisher didn't acquire any auxiliary merchandising rights (such as calendars, note cards, etc.) Second, even if the publisher did acquire these rights the company will either publish the calendar directly or choose a favored licensee--that is, someone with whom it has previously licensed calendar rights.Third, by asking for permission, you will put the publisher on notice as to what you're doing, which could prevent you from "going rogue" yourself. Finally, even though it's possible that the publisher will assert trademark rights to "Going Rogue," it's not likely that trademark rights can actually be acquired in a single book title such as this. Bottom line: you're running a moderate risk of being hassled for issuing your calendar (and maybe also tripping over Sarah's right of publicity). Paradoxically the Dear Rich Staff believes you'll run less risk if you don't ask for permission. In any case, you'll likely face some serious marketplace competition, which is why we suggest you abandon the idea of trading off the book title and strike out with something unique (see above).  

October 7, 2009

U Can't Touch This: What Can I Do with MC Hammer's Stuff?

mc-hammer-dancejam.jpgDear Rich: Over 13 years ago I purchased MC Hammer's storage units which contained all his personal property such as awards, costumes, music, wedding pictures, business records, tons of mementos, etc. I want to do a blog and put pictures of the items daily on the blog so everyone can see what I have. I would like to someday sell it all to someone who will donate it back to him and they can use it somehow as a business promotional write off. In the meantime, I have about 10,000 brand new albums and tapes of his that I would like to sell on the blog site. I have a catchy name for the blog with part of it being MC Hammer. I collect memorabilia but have never hit it big like I did with this. Apparently you purchased the goods during Hammer's 1996 bankruptcy, one of several setbacks suffered by the man many once considered too legit to quit. As for your questions, the short answers are: (1) Reproducing the personal photos, business records, and perhaps some of the related mementos, at your blog would be an infringement of copyright (and may be a violation of privacy of the persons involved); (2) selling the stuff back to someone who will give it to MC Hammer sounds fine (though we're not clear on how this would qualify as a business deduction); (3) Selling the albums and tapes is fine though as far as we can tell, you might have a challenge moving the albums (and little luck with the tapes); (4) Using MC Hammer's name in your blog may be okay provided it doesn't create the impression that the performer endorses or is any way associated with what you are doing.Taking the other recommendations into consideration, the Dear Rich Staff notes that you can probably reproduce photos of items that you are selling for example, costumes and various mementos.

For more information on getting permission, check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off. 
September 29, 2009

Publicity Rights and SAT Preparation Materials

MeganFoxFHM.jpgDear Rich: I think my question relates to the right of publicity. I write and edit test prep materials for students studying for the SAT. These materials include sample test questions and examples that illustrate various grammar errors. Some of the sample test questions and examples include the names of celebrities, as well as the names of characters from novels and films (e.g., Harold and Kumar, Santino and Fredo). To illustrate an error in parallel structure, for example, I might include a sentence such as: "Steve Martin is both a brilliant physical comedian and has been successful at writing novels." Then I would include the corrected version: "Steve Martin is both a brilliant physical comedian and a successful novelist." Another example, used to illustrate an error in subject-verb agreement, is: "Megan Fox is one of those actresses who has international appeal." The corrected version would be "Megan Fox is one of those actresses who have international appeal." Would the publication and sale of materials that include these types of examples violate the right of publicity? The short and long answer to your question is that you can use fictional character names and celebrity names in your examples without violating the right of publicity. The Dear Rich Staff appreciates the opportunity to include a Megan Fox photo though we think a better example for your book might be: "Megan Fox is one of those 'actresses,' who have minimum screen time but maximum downloads." 

September 2, 2009

Going Postal: Image Rejection for Customized Stamps

Freud Stamp.jpgDear Rich: I have a cartoon of a character I created -- Dr. Julia Chicken -- facing off with Sigmund Freud. I wanted to make  U.S. postage stamps using that image but my artwork was rejected by Zazzle.com on the grounds of some celebrity malarkey. I had a feeling that Freud would give me trouble, but I'm not sure why. First of all, it's a parody, but even greater reason for confusion is the fact that the Freud photo is public domain. The short answer is that Zazzle is not legally obligated to manufacture your stamp. In order to use Zazzle, you must agree to their User Agreement and as you know, that means you can't use pictures of celebrities. Strange as it seems, the man who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychology and popularized the couch ("And how do you feel about that?") is still considered a celebrity 70 years after his death. He even has Beverly Hills representation. In addition to the 'celebrity malarkey,' the Zazzle User Agreement also won't let you "create a 'new' image using elements from images other people have created." So you've got two strikes against you. (Other companies sell custom postage stamps and their policies appear similar.) As for your parody and public domain defense, they're not relevant since the User Agreement trumps copyright (and nobody is accusing you of copyright infringment, anyway.) The Dear Rich staff believes you're best off dumping Sigmund from the imagery and just proceeding with Dr. Julia on stamps, instead.
July 29, 2009

Clown Law: No Laughing Matter :-}

iStock_000004251822XSmall.jpgDear Rich (and Staff): Karla is a wannabe comedienne who's developed "Karla Klown," a unique and highly recognizable costume/mime act. To try it out, she goes to Times Square where she's videotaped by both tourists and a TV reporter wandering by. People laugh hysterically when they see Karla's persona on TV and in YouTube videos but they have no idea who they're looking at. So someone decides to manufacture thousands of T-shirts bearing her likeness. What should Karla do? How long would it take to trademark the "Karla Klown" persona and would it be worth it? Once "Karla Klown" appears on stage or television, is Karla granted automatic control of the commercial use of her likeness by virtue of established public exposure?  The short answers to Karla's question are: (1) if Karla has been on television and achieved some notoriety for her appearances she may be able to prevent others from copying her claiming unfair competition and violation of her right of publicity; (2) Karla can't register her persona as a trademark but she can register her name and logo (for example, her image in makeup) for sale on goods such as t-shirts. The process costs approximately $300 per class of goods or services and takes about nine months to a year. (You can learn more about trademark registration here); and (3) the point at which Karla obtains a right of publicity for the exploitation of her persona depends on several factors, described below. 
The Other Carla
Before we leave Klown-land for Legal-land, is Karla aware of Carla the Clown (aka Carla the Clown of Love). Unless Carla and Karla are the same -- and the Dear Rich staff assumes they're not -- then the two clowns may be headed for a celebrity clown smackdown. The rights to the name trademark (soundalikes matter) will go to the first person to offer clown services in the geographic region (the name does not yet appear to be federally registered). . Some clowns have not been afraid to assert trademark rights but Karla may want to consult a lawyer before proceeding.
A Clown's Publicity Rights
Whether it's Krusty, Bozo, or Weary Willie, one of the key factors in asserting a right of publicity is to popularize that clown so that it is "identifiable" by the public.  When a performer's persona is embodied in a specific role, make-up, or costume, the question is not whether the performer is identifiable under the make-up, but whether the performer and the role are inseparable. For example, in a 1994 case, a court ruled that Spanky McFarland's character from the Our Gang comedies was so closely identifiable with him that it was inseparable from the actor's own public image and on that basis his estate could proceed with a right of publicity claim. So if Karla is "inextricably identified" with a specific performer, then Karla has secured a right of publicity. If not, then ..... 
July 27, 2009

'That Guy' and Copyright: Short Phrase Protection

Dear Rich: I have a blog where I post original satirical and observational pieces using a common phrase ("that guy" as in "you might be 'that guy' if..."). I was recently contacted by a radio personality halfway across the country who stated my material infringed upon his copyrighted recordings (two minute radio bits on "that guy"). After reviewing a sample recording he provided, the only discernible similarity I could find was the use of the common phrase ('that guy'). His format, delivery, tone, etc. are very different from the content and writing style of my blog. It was my impression common phrases are not capable of being copyrighted. Additionally, I believe even if he was able to copyright some version of the common phrase, my blog would fall under fair use. The short answer is that whether you use "that guy," "this guy," "that girl," or even "that's cat," copyright protection is not available for short phrases or single words. (Check out our article on the subject.) If that's all that your blog and the radio guy's shows have in common, there's no copyright infringement. (Fair use is not likely to be an issue because it doesn't appear as if you are borrowing any of the radio guy's material.) 
Trademarks and Other Claims
That isn't to say you can't run into a problem under trademark law or the right of publicity. There are many registered trademarks for "that guy" for jewelry, bumper stickers, coasters, decals, headbands, men's clothing and for a service identifying character actors (y'know, that guy). The Department of Defense even owns one for educational videos about alcohol consumption (oh, that guy!). However the unofficial search by the Dear Rich Staff couldn't find any registrations that would interfere with your rights to publish a blog. That isn't to say that someone with enough money and too much time on their hands might bring a lawsuit based on unfair competition or some other theory but the chances for success seem slim based on the facts in your letter. What's the video got to do with your question? This guy is one of our favorite "that guys."
July 24, 2009

Selling Michael Jackson Jewelry


Thumbnail image for 375px-Michael_Jackson_sculpture.jpgDear Rich: I have questions: is it legal to sell jewelry with Michael Jackson's pictures? The images are all over and I wonder if it is legal. What if the seller is just charging for the craft and not for the image? Is that OK and legal? Final question, is it OK to buy these jewelry items or is the buyer breaking the law as well?  (1) Selling MJ jewelry probably violates Jackson's trademark rights (hey, if you're in D.C., check out the USPTO tribute), his right of publicity (which passed to Jackson's estate under California law) and may also violate copyright law, unless permitted as a fair use.  (2) We don't understand your second question and we don't think a judge would either. If a crafts artist includes an infringing work on its product, it's an infringement no matter how the price is explained. Otherwise, bootleg DVD sellers could claim the buyer was only paying for the DVD not the pirated movie. (3) In some instances the buyer of an infringing work may violate copyright law depending on the intent and use of the purchase -- for example, if the buyer resells it, displays it or in any way contributes to or encourages the infringement. The pursuit and prosecution of buyers is not common. Copyright owners are more interested in sellers of infringing merchandise. So, if it's illegal, you may be wondering why the estate doesn't do something to stop the tsunami of infringements. Probably it's so overwhelming that if enforcement is taking place, it's for the most egregious and damaging offenses. 

Beat It: Finding MJ Imagery
By the way, the photo above by Dutch photographer Sjors Provoost is one of a few MJ-related images available for commercial reuse under the terms of a Creative Commons license. To find these re-usable images, begin your search using Google Image Search, then click Advanced Image Search and under "Usage Rights" choose the drop down that applies for your search -- for example, "labeled for commercial reuse with modification." Each photo should provide instructions on your rights to reproduce. 
July 7, 2009

Q: Why Wasn't Warhol Sued? A: He Was

andy-warhol-flowers-1964-fs-ii6.jpgDear Rich: Copyright is one of my favorite subjects as I work with students who will soon be school teachers. Here is a question my students have been exploring. Considering all the problems that Shepard Fairey has because of his derivative poster based on a photo of Barack Obama made me wonder, did Andy Warhol's paintings and prints of Campbell's soup cans, Mickey Mouse, Marilyn Monroe get him into trouble with the owners of those original works? The short answer to your question is that Warhol's art has triggered some lawsuits. 
Patricia Caulfield, the photographer whose work was used as the basis of Warhol's flower prints (above) sued in November 1966 and settled for cash and artwork. Warhol's 1964 work, 16 Jackies, was the subject of a lawsuit brought against the Warhol Foundation in 1996 by the photographer of the original Jackie photos. That led the Foundation to sue Warhol's insurer. Warhol was never sued over his Marilyns, which were based on a publicity still of Monroe. We're not sure how Warhol managed the rights for his Mickey Mouse but apparently he didn't run into the same kind of litigation in which 60's cartoonist Dan O'Neill became embroiled. Perhaps because Dan was naughty (parental advisory), and Andy was nice? Campbell's Soup Company didn't litigate; they exploited the efforts of their most famous chicken-noodle fan. The company even offers an Art of Soup contest in collaboration with the Warhol Museum. PS Speaking of cool Warhol collaborations, the Dear Rich Staff recommends this.
July 2, 2009

Using Amazon Reviewer Quotes on Product

amazonreviews.jpgDear Rich: Can I use the text and names of people who review my product on Amazon? I'd like to put it on our product packaging. The short is answer is 'No.' Even though the reviewer has given Amazon the right to reproduce the content and reviewer's name under Amazon's Conditions of Use*, they haven't given you the same rights. Using the review without permission could open your company up to a claim of violation of the right of publicity or copyright infringement. We normally might not be this paranoid, but companies that sell products are easy targets and the last thing you would want is to recall your packaging in order to accommodate a court order.
Possible workarounds?
Some possible workarounds are to contact the reviewer (usually, there's a way to communicate if you click on the reviewer's name) for permission (an email permission should be fine). If that's not possible, using one or two lines from the review is probably permissible under fair use principles -- although, again, the Dear Rich Staff would counsel against using the reviewer's name without permission. 
*Speaking of Amazon's Conditions of Use ... You might want to think twice before posting a bad review of that new Lindsay Lohan movie. As an Amazon reviewer, you agree to pay for Amazon's court costs and damages if a lawsuit is filed as a result of your comments! Ouch!
June 11, 2009

Board Game Based on Movie (NOT!)

boardgame2.jpgDear Rich: I'm thinking of developing a board game based on a friend's idea. The game title and game roles are borrowed directly from a movie. Can I use the movie title and characters' names in my game? Secondly, I want to use characters' portraits from the movie in my design. What if I just draw the portraits by myself, say, in cartoon style? Third, the game rule is based on a party game called Mafia. Is that legal? Before we begin, can we send a shout-out to anyone asking Dear Rich questions about using a movie or TV show as the basis of their book, movie, t-shirt, or coffee mug? Regardless of the legal analysis provided by the Dear Rich staff, if the owner finds out about what you're doing, Games.jpgyou're likely to get hassled. (Yes, we're talking about "sue first, ask questions later.") We're not advising you give up your legal rights, but if you have limited resources, we do advise against investing them in a project with a built-in hassle factor.

Okay, the short (and long) answers to your questions are: (1) copyright does not protect titles, but may protect a title when used in connection with other important elements (like character names); trademark law may also protect the movie title, (2) your drawings may or may not avoid copyright problems (it depends on whether they're considered derivatives) and may or may not avoid right of publicity claims (it depends on how the game is marketed), and (3) the psychologists who invented Mafia don't appear to claim proprietary rights, so you're free to base your game on it as long as you don't copy somebody else's derivative version. Take-away points: enjoy the game; don't sell it.
June 5, 2009

Rights to Deceased Movie Actor Figurine

ben-living-dead-emcee-thumb.jpgDear Rich: I have a business that sells small collectible figurines. I am interested in finding out whether it is acceptable for me to create figurines of characters in movies which have entered the public domain, without obtaining permission. For example, a classic 1940s movie entered the public domain because of a failure to file a copyright or extension. The actors in this movie are well-known and have been in many other movies. I would like to produce and market a figurine of one of these characters, as portrayed by this well-known actor (who is now deceased). Is this acceptable? The short answer to your question is "yes, for the movie rights; maybe not for the rights connected with the actor's estate." The only way you could be hassled regarding the movie rights is (1) if the movie is based on a book which has not fallen into the public domain and (2) a court feels that the literary character is separately protectible. The Dear Rich staff thinks that's a long shot, since most books published before 1963 are probably in the PD. As for the actor's publicity rights, many states, including California, have a "descendible" right of publicity, meaning that the actor's estate inherits the right to exploit his persona. In California, that right lasts for 70 years after death. That's why Steve McQueen and John Wayne are still making endorsement deals. Since it is sometimes difficult to separate an actor from a character -- think Jimmy Stewart and George Bailey -- the right of publicity may be triggered by your figurine (provided the public can recognize it as being based on the actor). In that case, check your mailbox for a C&D letter.