• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The Official The Walking Dead Discussion Thread
13 13

Started by MutantKeys,

40,448 posts in this topic

comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

 

Also - just have to say it - as a lawyer - in my opinion one may, through artwork (not photography necessarily - that gets murky) portray any person, celebrity or private person, for profit - without permission - so long as no logos or endorsements are present (and even then one may still usually use it) -- especially in the case of drawing them as a zombie, which is clearly not going to create an issue of confusion for the public.... / end lawyer rant.

 

 

That may be possible if they are zombified.

 

Given the discussion was about the central three characters, who are living, and the photos shown were for those same characters and not the zombies, I wouldn't want to be the one defending against a celebrity with deep enough pockets to sue me because I lifted their likeness for a purely commercial pursuit without seeking permission or offering compensation.

 

That's especially true if you've got a camera and a family and they are willing volunteers. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JS

JS

Posted
Posted

 

Also - just have to say it - as a lawyer - in my opinion one may, through artwork (not photography necessarily - that gets murky) portray any person, celebrity or private person, for profit - without permission - so long as no logos or endorsements are present (and even then one may still usually use it) -- especially in the case of drawing them as a zombie, which is clearly not going to create an issue of confusion for the public.... / end lawyer rant.

 

 

That may be possible if they are zombified.

 

Given the discussion was about the central three characters, who are living, and the photos shown were for those same characters and not the zombies, I wouldn't want to be the one defending against a celebrity with deep enough pockets to sue me because I lifted their likeness for a purely commercial pursuit without seeking permission or offering compensation.

 

That's especially true if you've got a camera and a family and they are willing volunteers. lol

 

lol - it's late - I threw my lawyer cap on the couch and my dogs are using it as a pillow right now - I have to say, the cover is a bit of a throwback in the choice of colors and shading, which I do like -

 

With that, goodnight fellow WD enthusiasts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

 

Also - just have to say it - as a lawyer - in my opinion one may, through artwork (not photography necessarily - that gets murky) portray any person, celebrity or private person, for profit - without permission - so long as no logos or endorsements are present (and even then one may still usually use it) -- especially in the case of drawing them as a zombie, which is clearly not going to create an issue of confusion for the public.... / end lawyer rant.

 

 

That may be possible if they are zombified.

 

Given the discussion was about the central three characters, who are living, and the photos shown were for those same characters and not the zombies, I wouldn't want to be the one defending against a celebrity with deep enough pockets to sue me because I lifted their likeness for a purely commercial pursuit without seeking permission or offering compensation.

 

That's especially true if you've got a camera and a family and they are willing volunteers. lol

 

lol - it's late - I threw my lawyer cap on the couch and my dogs are using it as a pillow right now - I have to say, the cover is a bit of a throwback in the choice of colors and shading, which I do like -

 

With that, goodnight fellow WD enthusiasts.

 

 

 

My Lawyer Cap is stapled to my head (law school hazing incident...don't ask.)

 

Michonne's face bugs me. Now, at least, I know it's because it's a DUDE!! :ohnoez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nico Esq

Nico Esq

Posted
Posted

 

Also - just have to say it - as a lawyer - in my opinion one may, through artwork (not photography necessarily - that gets murky) portray any person, celebrity or private person, for profit - without permission - so long as no logos or endorsements are present (and even then one may still usually use it) -- especially in the case of drawing them as a zombie, which is clearly not going to create an issue of confusion for the public.... / end lawyer rant.

 

 

That may be possible if they are zombified.

 

Given the discussion was about the central three characters, who are living, and the photos shown were for those same characters and not the zombies, I wouldn't want to be the one defending against a celebrity with deep enough pockets to sue me because I lifted their likeness for a purely commercial pursuit without seeking permission or offering compensation.

 

That's especially true if you've got a camera and a family and they are willing volunteers. lol

 

There would be tons of insurance available and a duty to defend. I wouldn't get too worked up about defending a slap suit ... it's been a long, long time since I've looked at that issue, but my recollection is that Jerry's statement of the common law rule is correct. Average people get attacked by armies of attorneys for multinational corporations and do just fine with often very inexperienced and poorly funded attorneys. But I'd have to think about the issue some more to have a firm opinion on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

 

Also - just have to say it - as a lawyer - in my opinion one may, through artwork (not photography necessarily - that gets murky) portray any person, celebrity or private person, for profit - without permission - so long as no logos or endorsements are present (and even then one may still usually use it) -- especially in the case of drawing them as a zombie, which is clearly not going to create an issue of confusion for the public.... / end lawyer rant.

 

 

That may be possible if they are zombified.

 

Given the discussion was about the central three characters, who are living, and the photos shown were for those same characters and not the zombies, I wouldn't want to be the one defending against a celebrity with deep enough pockets to sue me because I lifted their likeness for a purely commercial pursuit without seeking permission or offering compensation.

 

That's especially true if you've got a camera and a family and they are willing volunteers. lol

 

There would be tons of insurance available and a duty to defend. I wouldn't get too worked up about defending a slap suit ... it's been a long, long time since I've looked at that issue, but my recollection is that Jerry's statement of the common law rule is correct. Average people get attacked by armies of attorneys for multinational corporations and do just fine with often very inexperienced and poorly funded attorneys. But I'd have to think about the issue some more to have a firm opinion on it.

 

 

You are aware that several states have deemed through statute and case law precedent ( both of which trump common law) that these rights, sometimes called Publicity Rights, are a property right and can be enforced by both the person being infringed upon and their families up to 75 years past their death, right?

 

The states that didn't make it a property right seem to fall on it being a tort, which dies with the person whose likeness is being used. It's an offshoot of privacy rights that have gained in strength recently across the country.

 

A lot of it will be determined on what state the person who's likeness is being used resides in and makes their permanent residence currently or at the time of death. This was a key component in the case of Marylin Monroe's likeness rights.

 

That issue, states doing whatever they want on an individual basis, is why there is confusion in some circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted

 

Also - just have to say it - as a lawyer - in my opinion one may, through artwork (not photography necessarily - that gets murky) portray any person, celebrity or private person, for profit - without permission - so long as no logos or endorsements are present (and even then one may still usually use it) -- especially in the case of drawing them as a zombie, which is clearly not going to create an issue of confusion for the public.... / end lawyer rant.

 

 

That may be possible if they are zombified.

 

Given the discussion was about the central three characters, who are living, and the photos shown were for those same characters and not the zombies, I wouldn't want to be the one defending against a celebrity with deep enough pockets to sue me because I lifted their likeness for a purely commercial pursuit without seeking permission or offering compensation.

 

That's especially true if you've got a camera and a family and they are willing volunteers. lol

 

There would be tons of insurance available and a duty to defend. I wouldn't get too worked up about defending a slap suit ... it's been a long, long time since I've looked at that issue, but my recollection is that Jerry's statement of the common law rule is correct. Average people get attacked by armies of attorneys for multinational corporations and do just fine with often very inexperienced and poorly funded attorneys. But I'd have to think about the issue some more to have a firm opinion on it.

 

 

You are aware that several states have deemed through statute and case law precedent ( both of which trump common law) that these rights, sometimes called Publicity Rights, are a property right and can be enforced by both the person being infringed upon and their families up to 75 years past their death, right?

 

The states that didn't make it a property right seem to fall on it being a tort, which dies with the person whose likeness is being used. It's an offshoot of privacy rights that have gained in strength recently across the country.

 

A lot of it will be determined on what state the person who's likeness is being used resides in and makes their permanent residence currently or at the time of death. This was a key component in the case of Marylin Monroe's likeness rights.

 

That issue, states doing whatever they want on an individual basis, is why there is confusion in some circles.

 

Tony got C & D letters from the both zombies in this piece. :eek:

 

IMG00131-20101116-2148.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nico Esq

Nico Esq

Posted
Posted

 

Also - just have to say it - as a lawyer - in my opinion one may, through artwork (not photography necessarily - that gets murky) portray any person, celebrity or private person, for profit - without permission - so long as no logos or endorsements are present (and even then one may still usually use it) -- especially in the case of drawing them as a zombie, which is clearly not going to create an issue of confusion for the public.... / end lawyer rant.

 

 

That may be possible if they are zombified.

 

Given the discussion was about the central three characters, who are living, and the photos shown were for those same characters and not the zombies, I wouldn't want to be the one defending against a celebrity with deep enough pockets to sue me because I lifted their likeness for a purely commercial pursuit without seeking permission or offering compensation.

 

That's especially true if you've got a camera and a family and they are willing volunteers. lol

 

There would be tons of insurance available and a duty to defend. I wouldn't get too worked up about defending a slap suit ... it's been a long, long time since I've looked at that issue, but my recollection is that Jerry's statement of the common law rule is correct. Average people get attacked by armies of attorneys for multinational corporations and do just fine with often very inexperienced and poorly funded attorneys. But I'd have to think about the issue some more to have a firm opinion on it.

 

 

You are aware that several states have deemed through statute and case law precedent ( both of which trump common law) that these rights, sometimes called Publicity Rights, are a property right and can be enforced by both the person being infringed upon and their families up to 75 years past their death, right?

 

The states that didn't make it a property right seem to fall on it being a tort, which dies with the person whose likeness is being used. It's an offshoot of privacy rights that have gained in strength recently across the country.

 

A lot of it will be determined on what state the person who's likeness is being used resides in and makes their permanent residence currently or at the time of death. This was a key component in the case of Marylin Monroe's likeness rights.

 

That issue, states doing whatever they want on an individual basis, is why there is confusion in some circles.

 

I agree that the law in every flippin' state is a little or a lot different than every other state and even the survivability of statutory and/or common law causes of action is different on a state by state basis (e.g., some states enumerate code sections where causes of action survive death and/or some states do not and/or rely upon common law principles). It is really hard to talk about any legal question w/o talking about state law. This whole line of discussion is out of my comfort zone too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
13 13
Go to topic listing