[Foundation-l] Celebrity pictures
Anthony
wikilegal at inbox.org
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
More information about the wikimedia-l
mailing list