Will We Get in Trouble for Sports Celebrity Prints?

Dear Rich: Can an artist sell to the public prints from paintings done of famous sport celebrities for profit in California and other places. He was told an artist's 'first amendment publicity' or something like that trumps the rights of the famous person. This artist doesn't seem to be concerned at all but he's a good friend and not in good health and if something happened and if he was drug into court, he'd likely die from the stress and embarrassment to his career (even if he won). Shall I try and stop him? He says if there is a problem he'll simply just stop immediately. I'm worried about him. We think that what your artist friend was told was that "an artist's first amendment right trumps a sports celebrity's right of publicity," a maxim that oversimplifies a complex issue. The right of publicity allows every person to control the use of their name or persona for commercial purposes -- typically on a product (like our Tiger Woods golf ball). However, celebrities cannot control so-called informational or "communicative" (first amendment) uses -- for example, articles, books, or documentaries.
What about the gray areas? Things get tricky at the intersection of communicative and commercial uses -- such as limited edition art prints. In that situation, a ten-year old Ohio ruling favors your friend. An artist painted Tiger Woods at the Masters Tournament and later sold more than 5000 prints of the image superimposed with other great golfers. (Here are some details on the artwork). A federal court of appeals ruled that the sale did not violate Tiger's right of publicity. A related ruling regarding paintings of the University of Alabama's football team -- though it dealt more with trademarks than the right of publicity -- also was in favor of the artist. Both of these cases took years and a great deal of attorney time and fees to decide. So, although the law may be on the side of your friend, that doesn't mean he can't be dragged into court to defend his rights.
No copyright infringement. Also, we're assuming that the prints being sold are made from your artist friend's original paintings. If the paintings are by another artist, or if they are based on a photographer's original photos, then your friend could be hassled for claims of copyright infringement by the original artist or photographer respectively.

Can We Use Amazon Reviews in Our Product Ad?

what a bank employee once told us ...

Dear Rich: Our software product has gotten great reviews on Amazon. If we were to include any of these reviews in the copy on the software product page, is there anything I should be aware of or get permission for? We know how great it is to get positive online reviews for your stuff. But unfortunately, you must obtain permission before using someone's name or persona to endorse your product. If you don't, you are likely violating that person's right of publicity. (Although there are some gray areas regarding the right of publicity, it's generally acknowledged that using someone's name without permission in an advertisement is a no-no.) In addition, if you copy and post a lengthy review, it's possible (though unlikely) that a reviewer could claim copyright infringement.
How does Amazon get away with it? Amazon requires that users assent to its Conditions of Use in order to post a review. Those conditions state: "You grant Amazon and sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such content, if they choose."
What can you do? The safest route would be to use short excerpts from the reviews -- say 20 words or less -- and to avoid identifying the reviewer. Definitely don't use last names or screen handles, avatars, etc. First names and initials are probably fine unless they're so unique as to identify the person.
But what about what Amazon does on Facebook? There's a whole different set of rules when Amazon pays Facebook to use your name and endorsement on products.

Wants to Use Bruno for Hair Salon

Dear Rich: I have set up an upmarket ladies hair salon called Bruno's Kuafor, and used Sacha Baron Cohen's satirical character Bruno as the inspiration. We actually use one striking image of the character all over our marketing literature. The logo is our own. The whole theme works brilliantly, and I did have it in mind to contact him to help the promotion, or even give him some financial share or incentive. But we are in Istanbul, so we are a long way away, and we didn't get round to it. And now a friend wants to open a branch in New York. What can I get away with, what should I do, is this a good time to contact Mr. Cohen or his agent to license the image of his dead character, or indeed try and get Mr Cohen involved more directly? We love the image, it is one that was used widely to promote the film Bruno, we just lifted it off the internet. We're not sure about Turkish law, but under U.S. law, you will need permission from the company that owns the rights to the Bruno character, as well as from Sacha Baron Cohen, whose image is used to promote your salon. That's because the use of the character and the actor's image triggers violations of copyright law (using images from the film), trademark law (the character may have acquired trademark status), and the right of publicity (the right of a person to control the use of his or her image for commercial purposes). Obviously, the more successful you become, the more likely you will need permission ... which is a bit of a Catch 22 because by seeking permission, you're alerting the company as to your use. If you do decide to seek permission, we believe the place to start would be Four By Two Films, the production company owned by Cohen and responsible for his movies and TV shows.

Why is Faulkner Suing Woody Allen?

Dear Rich: You have been advising people that it's okay to use quotations without infringing ... but the Faulkner estate recently sued several companies for using a Faulkner quote.  Is it okay or isn't it? Speaking of Faulkner, we recently read The Sound and the Fury for the first time and we have to say that was one heck of a confusing book. We kind of liked it but if it weren't for the Cliffs Notes-style explanation in Wikipedia, we're not sure we could positively distinguish Quentin and Ms. Quentin. We tried the movie version for clarity and that was a big mistake (although that's a pretty unique cast!) Right, you had a question. Yes, the Faulkner estate recently sued over the use of two Faulkner quotes. The first lawsuit is over the quote “The past is not dead! Actually, it's not even past." The estate sued Sony Pictures over the use of that quote in Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris," (more details here), and they also sued Northrop Grumman and the Washington Post over an ad that used a second Faulkner quote, "We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it," (more details here). The two complaints are similar (see the movie complaint; see the Grumman complaint). They both have three claims --  copyright infringement, Lanham Act violation, and commercial appropriation. We'd bet our mortgage that the copyright infringement claim will fail for the reasons expressed in yesterday's blog. As for the other two claims, we have a feeling that the estate is unhappy with the associations (military contractors, Woody Allen) and is trying to push the limits of "endorsement" claims, which could be troublesome considering that Mississippi has little precedent for right of publicity claims.
Takeaway Dept. We'll stand by our position on copyright and quotations but add the caveat that being "right" doesn't mean that copyright owners can't sue you. If you're planning an advertisement that uses a quote from someone who is alive or recently deceased, get it reviewed by a lawyer.

Can We Use MLB Players in Investment Book

Dear Rich: The book we are writing contains MLB players' names and positions to illustrate a metaphor comparing an investment portfolio to a baseball team. It could be written without the names, but they add value, which is where the question might come in. I read at the Stanford Library Fair Use site that nonfiction books fall under "informational use" rather than "commercial use." The cases on that site make me feel the law's interpreted based on the weather that day. And through this link on your blog  I read that mentioning company names in fictional accounts is not a problem. We won't use player names or MLB-trademark terms (which is about everything BUT the word baseball) to advertise.  We think that your use of MLB player names and positions as a metaphor for investment is an informational use, and is likely to be protected under the first amendment. The distinction between informational and commercial uses is not a bright line, but when making the determination, you should focus on how the celebrity or trademark is used within the content ... not whether the content itself is sold. For example, newspapers and books may be sold to consumers but they may contain informational uses of celebrities and trademarks. On the other hand, giving away a celebrity t-shirt in return for a donation to a nonprofit may be considered as a commercial use. It often comes down to whether the celebrity is being directly exploited to endorse something. (FYI Dept. Much of the stuff written at the Stanford Fair Use site was written by the Dear Rich staff and is from our book, Getting Permission ... just sayin')

How Much is Paid for Life Story Rights?

Dear Rich: What compensation is typically given to the subject of a life story from the proceeds of the book and/or movie? Do they have rights to receive any? You don't always get paid just because someone creates a book or movie based on your life story. For example, no paychecks were written to Maggie Thatcher, George Bush or Serge Gainsbourg for their recent biopics (all good films btw, though the Dear Rich Staff especially loved Serge's story). If a story is about a public figure and can be told based on public records, existing news articles, and other public facts -- for example, as in this film -- then it's unlikely that the filmmakers will seek rights from the parties depicted in the film. Payments for rights are more likely to be made in films such as The Blind Side involving private figures and for which the cooperation of the depicted parties is required (such agreements are sometimes referred to as Cooperation Agreements, Consulting Agreements, or Life-Rights Agreements). When permission is sought, it is usually to prevent three types of legal claims, right of publicity, defamation, and invasion of privacy. Often these deals permit fictionalization and release the producers from any claimed injuries resulting from how the character is depicted.
How much is paid? According to Dina Appleton's book, Hollywood Dealmaking: Negotiating Talent Agreements, $25,000 to $100,000 is typically paid for TV life story rights, and between $100,000 and $250,000 is paid for motion picture life story rights. Sometimes a fraction of this payment (for example, 10%) is paid as an option and the remainder is only paid if the TV show or film goes into production.
P.S. Check out our previous life-rights post.

Ryan Gosling Memes: Infringing?

Dear Rich: I read your explanation about using paparazzi photos and it made sense. But then how do you explain the Ryan Gosling meme? I assume that most of the photos that are being used were taken by professional photographers, and I doubt if many of the web sites and Tumblr accounts that have been spreading them are paying for permission to use the images. How can you know when it is ok to use an image without getting permission? For those over-worked readers who are always late to the viral party (and perhaps still not familiar with Rebecca Black, Obama Girl, and LOLcats), the Ryan Gosling meme refers to the collection of Ryan Gosling photos that are modified with captions -- always a short statement attributed to Ryan that starts with "Hey Girl" and follows with some invitation to intimacy or a proclamation of love, devotion etc. The meme has split into various trails, including a feminist Ryan Gosling meme  and a Silicon Valley RG meme (that includes a rare patent law reference).
Hey Girl, Can You Copy Me? As for the legal rights connected with meme-ing, the Dear Rich Staff believes that if you're asking about permission to use Ryan Gosling photos, you're also probably wondering about how often you need to get your cholesterol checked. In other words, folks who meme usually don't care about no stinking badges. It's true that all of the Ryan Gosling photos are likely protected by copyright law, but for some reason we're not hearing of any copyright owners going after these folks (and Ryan, himself seems to condone the use as well -- so much for right of publicity claims). Of course, the Internet use is one thing -- and we can understand why copyright owners might be gun shy about going after a popular meme -- but the reproduction in a book does require permission (and is expensive -- scroll down to the Jan 14 blog entry). Although some copyright owners do have a breaking point, we think most of these fleeting Internet memes tend to fly under copyright radar.

Can We Pilfer Celebrity Photos From IMDB?

Marlon Brando and James Baldwin
at 1963 March on Washington

Dear Rich: I wanted to post some photos for a celebrity article at my website. I’ve totally forgotten rules regarding photos. Can I pilfer IMDB and give an attribute to them or do I actually need their permission? Are there any secret public domain photos for celebs you know about? The copyright in celebrity photos is owned by the photographer (or by the agency to whom the photographer has transferred rights). We doubt whether the IMDB owns rights in all the photos it posts. Most likely, it's acquired those rights from the copyright holders. Often large celebrity-styled sites have ongoing 'subscription' deals with the companies that own photo rights such as Getty Images, PR Photos, PictureLux, and Shutterstock.
Operating without clearance. If you work for a website company, you're best off not jeopardizing your job by using unauthorized photos. The price you'll have to pay -- time, threats, lawsuits and payments -- if you're caught will far outweigh the licensing costs. If you're just posting a photo occasionally to your personal blog, you're less likely to get hassled but beware that photo agencies employ various means of tracking digital photo use including digital watermarks and embedded metadata.
Right of publicity. The rules we provide here are for websites where you are using the celebrity photo as a means of illustrating a story about the celebrity -- for example, you're discussing the funny side of Mike Tyson. If you are using the celebrity photo to imply endorsement of your site or to sell a product or service, you'll need the celebrity's permission as well.
Public domain photos. There are some public domain photos of celebrities. Try sites such as Wikimedia and read and observe the terms of the licenses. We're not so sure about so-called public domain photos at other sites -- that is, whether the photos are actually in the public domain. We typed in "public domain celebrity photos" and found mixed results (including pictures of Dwight Eisenhower and Britney Spears -- we don't want to think about the potential mash-up!). Of course photos taken by government employees -- for example, Elvis shaking hands with President Nixon (soon to be a movie) are in the PD. We think that's the case with our photo of Marlon Brando and James Baldwin (above) -- perhaps taken by an FBI agent. (And here's a related video made around the same time).

Using 70's Voice Over in New Music Track

Dear Rich: I'm in the final stages of producing a music single. In the song I've sampled the voice-over of a 1970's TV ad. The voice-over is of a familiar and famous figure from that period. Would I need to clear this and for this purpose with whom, as I assume in this case that no record company or music publisher would be involved. We're not sure which familiar and famous person's voice-over you're using but if you're creating a second single, you might want to consider a classic 70s TV ad in which a size-challenged nautical figure -- perhaps a descendant of this character -- rides around in a boat in your toilet and urges consumers to pollute the waters with blue chemicals. How '70s is that?
Right you had a question. You're correct that you wouldn't need to clear the voice-over recording with a music publisher or record company. You may not need any permission at all, as explained below, but there are three possible legal rights you need to consider:

• the copyright on the commercial. The most likely permission needed is that of the copyright holder -- that's likely to be the ad agency that created the commercial, or the company whose product is featured in the commercial. The copyright owner would own rights to the text of the commercial and to the audio. You wouldn't need permission if you claimed fair use (which can always be a bit tricky). And you probably wouldn't need to bother with permission if the company holding copyright had disappeared and you couldn't track down a successor. (And of course, you wouldn't need permission if your song had limited appeal and was unlikely to be heard by anyone connected with the copyright owner -- what we call the "tree falls in the forest" theory.)
• the use of the famous figure's voice.  If the familiar and famous person's (FFP) voice is recognizable and listeners think that it is being used for purposes of endorsement, the FFP might have a claim based on the right of publicity. We wouldn't worry about this too much because the FFP's ROP probably won't be triggered unless the song is used for a 3rd party commercial purpose -- that is, it's licensed for use with another product or service (This article provides a short ROP summary). 
• trademark rights. If the product name (the subject of the commercial) is included in your song, that might trigger claims of dilution or infringement but both of these claims are unlikely to succeed as use of trademarks is permitted for informational (or editorial) uses such as songs. One judge characterized the conflicting interests of the parties "Speech-zilla v. Trademark Kong." 

Are Nonprofits Liable for Photo Infringement?

Dear Rich: I have been collecting black-and-white snapshots at antiques shops and flea markets for several years. This year i started posting some of them with slightly irreverent captions on my website. I think I understand that orphan works produced before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain. But what about the later photos? I haven't been too concerned about copyright violations because it is a nonprofit site. However what if I wanted to reproduce the images for profit? What kind of legal issues would I face? We think you're operating under a few misconceptions so maybe we should clear those up, first.
Nonprofits can be liable for infringement. Being a nonprofit won't shield you from a lawsuit. Nonprofits are occasionally named as defendants -- for example, the Internet Archive was sued over its caching of old web pages (and some nonprofits have filed suits as well). Nonprofit status may affect fair use determinations (as explained here). But in general, it makes little difference for purposes of determining infringement, whether the theft was for profit or not. You should also be aware that nonprofit status is a corporate tax status; a failure to profit doesn't make you a nonprofit.
Orphan works are not public domain. You are correct that works published in the U.S. before 1923 are in the public domain in the U.S. But these are not orphan works. An orphan work is one that is still protected under copyright but whose owner is missing in action and there's nobody to contact for permission. We think that's the case with most of the photos at your website.
Right, you had a question. We think the odds are slim that you will be the subject of a lawsuit. A copyright owner of one of your vintage photos (the owner would be whoever took the picture) is unlikely to see your work, unlikely to threaten a lawsuit and unlikely to recover much if the lawsuit should it actually go to court. So the chances are low that you will be hassled. Still, for the record, these are infringements. There is also a slim possibility that one of the subjects of these photos will see your site and claim an invasion of privacy or (if you sell the images) a violation of the right of publicity.  Again, unlikely, but possible ... kind of like guessing whether an earthquake will hit Virginia.

Has Roy Orbison Negatives

Dear Rich: I read an article about a man who took pictures of the Beatles when he was a teen and recently sold them. That got me thinking about my 23-year old negatives I have of the singer Roy Orbison and his family. I was working on a Christmas card for the family and shot several rolls of film. A month and a half after the photo shoot Mr. Orbison passed away. As the photographer I had them sign a release and I still maintain the negatives. Question is: Do I have the right to print and market those images? If so, what do I need to market images and how far may I go in creating additional marketable images? OMG! We just realized Roy Orbison has been gone for almost 25 years! It seems like yesterday that the In Dreams star passed away. What has the Dear Rich Staff been doing all these years?
Right, you had a question. The short answer is that you can sell copies of your photographs (prints) and you can license the photos for editorial uses such as books and website articles. But you cannot license them for commercial uses such as product endorsements or merchandise unless such rights were conveyed to you by the people signing the releases (unlikely).
The longer answer. There are three legal principles at work: copyright, contracts, and the right of publicity. Unless the photos were done under an employment relationship, copyright grants the photographer (the person who took the pictures) the right to copy and create derivatives of the photos.  The right of publicity allows the subject of the photo to control the way their image is used for endorsements and merchandise. Contracts are used to transfer these rights. So, the photographer retains copyright unless a contract transfers that right and the subject retains the right of publicity unless that right is transferred by contract (for example, a release). For that reason, you will obtain the most reliable answer after someone reviews your photo releases to determine what rights were granted to you.

Model Releases for Street Festival

Participants in San Francisco's
Bay to Breakers Race/Party

Dear Rich: I have a question about model releases for a large, public, 2-day street festival. From what I can determine, I would not need a model release from the attendees that I photograph (there will be LOTS of them) unless I sell them, even if they are recognizable and the main subject of the photo. Is this correct? If the photos were to be sold or used commercially, would a release be required? If a release is necessary (even if it is just to cover our butts), to ease the burden of obtaining hundreds of model releases each day (I would not have time to take pictures!!), would it be legally binding to have a sign at the entrance to the festival (or printed on the tickets) stating something like: "Photographs will be taken during this festival. Selected photographs could be used commercially and in festival promotions. If you do not wish to have your photo taken, please inform the photographer." Yea! It's summer and the time for street fairs. We remember being in bands and playing at certain street fairs in San Francisco where photography would have been a problem because of the lack of a dress code (unless wardrobe malfunction counts as a dress code).
Right, you had a question(s). Photographers can reproduce and sell copies of photos of people in publicly viewable situations like street fairs. Newspapers and websites can reproduce those images if the pictures are used for "informational" purposes. But an advertiser can't use the same images of people to sell products or services if the person in the ad is clearly recognizable. That's because the advertising use implies that the person endorses or is somehow associated with the product.
Can you use a blanket release? Posting a sign may help your claim and it could be sufficient to use the photos to promote the street fair. But it probably doesn't meet the standards of a model release contract required for most commercial advertising uses. That's because the street fair participant doesn't really have an opportunity to assent to or to reject the release (something that is much easier to do if people have to pay for the tickets). Your present opt-out is for the participant to tell the photographer, 'No.'  But what if the participant isn't paying attention when the photo is taken and doesn't notice the photographer? Our suggestion is that if you take a photo and feel certain it would make for a good commercial use, use a short business card-sized release. (Here's some detailed information by the Dear Rich Staff on when and how to use model releases, and here's more on the right of publicity.)