[Foundation-l] Celebrity pictures

Tue Aug 29 13:36:30 UTC 2006

On 8/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> >On 8/28/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >>Perhaps more significant than whether anyone has lost is whether any
> >>such case has ever been filed.  Given that they are distributed for the
> >>specific purpose of publicity there could be an implicit permission.
> >>
> >>
> >If you're using the image for the purposes of promoting the person.
> >If, on the other hand, you're using the image to sell an encyclopedia
> >article which portrays the person in a way which they don't want to be
> >portrayed, then there probably isn't implicit permission.
> >
> I don't know if it's to "sell" an encyclopedia.  Lindsay Lohan would
> need to think she's pretty special if she believes a picture of her will
> make all the difference in encyclopedia sales.  Is she as self-absorbed
> as Paris Hilton?  Our use is transformative, and it in no way adversely
> affects the company's sales..  It would even be interesting to hear the
> companies comment on the function of publicity shots.
>
I was talking about reuse.  Specifically, someone who was selling
print encyclopedias with the current Lindsay Lohan article in it.  I
didn't mean to imply that the selling point was the picture, but
merely that the encyclopedia was being sold.

> >Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but even here in the US where we have some
> >very strong fair use and first amendment rights, I still wouldn't feel
> >comfortable selling an encyclopedia with the current [[Lindsay Lohan]]
> >article in it, without first receiving permission from the copyright
> >holders of the images.
> >(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lindsay_Lohan&oldid=72480012
> >in case it changes before this is read)
> >
> This may be a problem for the print version, and specific permissions
> should probably be sought when we get that far.  For the on-line
> verrsion however I have no problem with an active campaign to replace
> the fair use images with "free" ones.  It's clear that I'm more risk
> tolerant than you, but that doesn't mean there's such a wide gap between
> our views.
>
I don't think it makes sense to have such significant differences
between the print version and the online version.  Other than that, I
agree with you though.  I wouldn't have a problem distributing the
current article online.  In fact, I have a website where I'm doing it.

Jimbo has stated, long in the past, that he doesn't want the print
version to be a fork of the online version.  Maybe he's changed his
mind, but if not I think you have to consider the print and online
versions to be the same thing.

> >Frankly I think that case could be probably be won by the museum on
> >appeal, if they spent enough money fighting it.
> >
> Yeah, Dillinger has been dead since 1934.
>
In Indiana the right to publicity persists after death, though.

> >Besides, there are
> >always going to be crazy jurisdictions (like Indiana, apparently) with
> >laws so out of touch with reasonableness that we just can't follow
> >them.
> >
> Developing policies to account for such extremes is playing to the
> lleast common denominator.
>
Absolutely.  I agree.  But at the same time, US fair use is an extreme
too, just on the other end of the spectrum.

> >As for relying on the copyright holder of the image finding the
> >Wikipedia article "respectful", well, I just think that's a horrible
> >thing for us to even have to consider.  Would Linsay Lohan (*) object
> >to our portrayal of her in "Media spotlight"?  I don't know, and I
> >don't care.
> >
> There's also the question of who owns the copyright.  I suspect it's the
> studio who sends out fan pics to admirers.
>
I would think, with a publicity photo, that it'd be the publicist.

Anthony