I have ben wondering : who owns the copyright to one own's physical feature ? I mean : if I make a commercial flyer using Miss Schiffer's 3D copycat, rendering and post producing her so well that you could think she is the real one (this is just a supposition) : could she ask me to pay for this ? If I use a realistic 3D Marylin Monroe or George W. Bush to promote an hideous cause (your choice), who will stop me ? Is this an ethical, moral, or legal issue ? Compiler

Well, if you are referring to my supposed "Claudia" face file: 1. I didn't intend for it to look like her. I didn't even know what she looked like until my husband pointed an image of her out to me, and even THAT was after ghostship2 told me he thought the face looked like her (was news to me). 2. I am not making money off of the face file...it's up for free at www.big-i.com. It all was just a coincidence of the dials. Laurie

I'm not making any bad comments on your work, LaurieA. I apologize if my poor english could let you think so. I myself had quite some fun with making a Britney Spears morph. It's just a question I've been asking myself for some time now. What will the future be like if you never know what is real and what is fake ? To what extent do our lives belong to us ? What is the part of our beings that the others have a right on ? These kind of questions, you know... Hope you don't hold a grudge. Compiler

As I know .. you can NOT use any morphs or create characters of people that are dead already.. Elvis Presley or Marylin Monroe.. you need written permission to use this in commercial products but if you use just for hobby I don't see any problems.. I don't found anything about that don't allow you to use George W.Bush or Claudia but when you sell this character please use something as: Look a like and not direct Miss Shiffer for V3.. I read many articles regarding this and I am more that sure about.. this have to do with ethical and moral issue regarding to the family of already dead people and only they have the right to give you a permission.

Geeze..I hope I didn't sound nasty...LOL. One of the drawbacks of not being able to see the face of the person as you speak to them :o). I was just pointing out about the face file (I thought you might be referring to it). Anyway, no harm done. And no hard feelings...there never was any...LOL :o). Laurie

Since it's not a real photo, as long as you don't use the person's name or something else that specificly identifies that person (like a recognizable set from a movie they're in), then you should be fine. Of course, if someone wants to sue you, you can't stop them from trying. Winning or losing becomes moot when you start paying legal fees. I'd love to get my hands on some political morphs for Mike (grin). I do the website for a gay leather bar, and it'd be real fun to have ol' Bush and Jerry Falwell in full leathers on the front page welcoming people to the site.

Hey pdxjims.. what a great idea Hahahhahaha Wait I have own legal photos in high resolution of Bush an others includes also pop artist as M.Jackson and others..from front and profile that I collected for my custom commercial textures work.. how knows maybe if I am more free will start new political and pop line.. It can be funny

I wonder how Daz handled this issue with the Anne Marie Goddard morph pack, if they're still planning to put it out.

pdxjims...I think that would be a scream! Ole Falwell, gut and all, in leather...giggle Laurie

This works this way.. if you create a morphs for example using my own photos or a sculpture made from my face that I provided you I have the whole right until I set a contract with you and give you the right to use .. if you made just from your mind it is yours.. I talk about people that still are alife. I was working on a Game presentation last time where Microsoft wish to have a woman that look a like one of a movie star but without written permission of the person I can't do this for the commercial product... and here get only about commercial copyright issue.

Attached Link: FindLaw: Right of Publicity

The legal implications which you are discussing (using celebrity likenesses) falls generally under "Right of Publicity" and/or "Right of Privacy" statues.

The link is an article at FindLaw's regarding the "Right of Publicity" side.

Catherina, "If you do them, they will sell" I know I'd buy any political figure you make. Heck, I buy anything you make anyway as I get the cash (counting pennies for Hans today). Seriously though, political satire is something we have little of here, but when we do, everyone seems to enjoy it. I always turn to the editorial comics first when I read the paper. If we had some good morphs and textures for top political figures, we'd be doing a lot more of it. Of course, the flame wars would be intense, but I always love political controversy (so long as I win). G.W. Bush, Tony Blair, Ted Kennedy, Old Saddam, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (I'd just love to get those). These guys are almost charactures of real people now. Catherina, if you do one of a living person, and publish the work, does republishing after they die still get you in trouble?

There was a series of TV commercials for Pepsi about a decade ago that had old film footage of dead movie stars digitally added to shots of some singing flavour of the month, and the lawsuits flew like crazy. The commercials had to be pulled because the company was "appropriating" the likenesses without permission from the various stars' estates. It's akin to "intellectual property" in a way and is enforced as strongly as the estates wish it to be. Living people? I wouldn'g go there with a ten foot pole unless it was satirical in nature. Falwell in leather? Okay, a little predictable, but still a good start if youre making a point. But using Ms. Schiffer on a flyer? Not a chance. You might get away with it because it's such small time she won't care... but do you really want to take that risk?

I've seen plenty of porn out there with lookalike models. Whether that model is a living breathing person or a virtual persona is irrelevant. If you don't identify the individual as the person it looks like, there's not a thing they can do. If you do something that distinguishes them as them, even if it's not verbally naming them, then you canget into trouble. Parody allows you to use it to poke fun at them, but parody doesn't work unless they are found to be 'in the public eye'. You can't do this to make fun of your boss's ex-wife, unless, of course, your boss is Donald Trump (and the ex-wife is Ivana), for instance. As a note, the judge or jury not finding it funny doesn't make it not parody.

Hi LaurieA I did not find the face file you are referring to-although I like the website- very cool.. But I am curious as to WHERE the file is posted. Freestuff seems to be links... Eric

It is illegal to use a known individual in any piece of art that depicts an action that they might find objectionable or that promotes anything at all. "I've seen plenty of porn out there with lookalike models. Whether that model is a living breathing person or a virtual persona is irrelevant. If you don't identify the individual as the person it looks like, there's not a thing they can do. " You are NOT fine if you don't use their name - if the likeness is decent and a court declares that looking at the image leads the general public to believe it is that individual than it is a violation of their rights. Of course then, the celebrity can still sue you. If it looks realistic they will probably win. It is exploitation regardless of a stated name or not. This has actually gone to court several times (don't you wonder why commercials with celebrity look-alikes have to make that statement - even when it's just voice?) Tom Waits received $2 million in a settlement fro this with Frito Lay. Woody Allen won against video rental stores and Jackie O prevented her likeness from being used in modeling and fashion. Even for political satire it becomes questionable - political cartoonists have been sued over that as well. Read the link Cyberstretch provided most especially: "Is an individual's identity implied from the context, even when his/her name is not used? Is the individual's name, likeness, photograph, or description being used strictly for commercial purposes?" It specifically states "likeness" meaning that a name is not needed to identify. Take alook here: http://www.fake-detective.com/faqs/legal-1.htm to see a listing of law suits involving this subject Most specifically the Nancy Kerrigan case in which the image wasn't her but was doctored.

quixote, I read in a post that DAZ is selling the Anne Marie Goddard morph pack as a separate package so they can pay her royalities on the sales.

DAZ is very cautious in regards to copyrights I know they questioned my "Secrets of Victoria" when I released it - but I had already contacted Victoria Secret's Public Relations Dept. who in turn contacted their legal dept and agreed that they had no claim on "Secret's of..." So I'd feel very comfortable that they covered tehmselves on this matter.

WOW ! what a great number of very precise opinions. I'm impressed. Here, in France, I think it would be legal to use one personality likeness for parody purpose (and Geogre Bush yelling "make love, not war" dressed in leather would certainly be considered parodical here). Trying to make believe that the real person backs you up for your commercial would most probably be prosecuted. Actually, this question occured to me because, with Poser 5, you are supposed to be able to make a 3D model of any face, as long as you have a face photo and a side photo. These things are very easily available for public personalities. (and by the Anne Marie Goddard morph too. By the way : who is she ?)

Ok I read the USA Right of Publicity.. but this is for USA.. as you know in Europe are not the same rights.. you can say or do in papers what you wish and nobody can do to you anything in this situation.. this is not the way in USA but if I put out a clone of G.B in 3D what can happen? we can try.. in last I will have to remove this product.. I own legal photo materials so this will not big problem so our dear Mister P. G.B can get little more attention in the 3D world.. Buahhahaha

actually Catharina it would depend on the country - many do have viable laws governing the use of celebrities. A Celebrity can (and they have) fought internationally on the grounds of trademark - there face is their trademark. Therefore they can argue in other countries on basis of trademark violations or degradation. BAsically even in countries that do not have a "public rights" law they have statutes & common law clauses that prevent the use. These countries allow a celebrity to utilise a passing off that will allow them to claim infringement and unfair competition. (UK and Australia) Continental Europe has stronger celebrity rights. Germany protects the human dignity, Italy & France specifically protect their right to their own image. Canada has "appropriation of personality" laws. Japanese courts have laws similar to those in the US. A note though - "you can say or do in papers what you wish and nobody can do to you anything in this situation" This is different and the use of images for news falls under a different aspect of the law that does not pertain to the average artist. You may own the photos of celebrities - assuming you bought license royalties o them or you photographed themself, but that doesn't give one the right to create or use a celebrity likeness unless you use a disclaimer and even then depending on the content it may still be a legal issue.

sigh I wish we could edit... The latter part is supposed to read: "..assuming you bought the license royalties to them or you photographed them yourself..."

Oh lastly - (yes lastly) earning money or not in regards to copyrights/trademarks and such does not negate a violation of trademarks, copyrights et al It only affects the amount rewarded for damages, you could still pay damages though http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html Many people believe that if they offer something for free it is "fair use" it isn't. A lot of what we see here - using magazine photos for skin texturing etc. is not fair use at all. Fair use is intended to educate or allow commentary. "The fair use provision of the Copyright Act allows reproduction and other uses of copyrighted works under certain conditions for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research. Additional provisions of the law allow uses specifically permitted by Congress to further educational and library activities. " http://www.arl.org/scomm/copyright/uses.html

Sounds to me like all these 'rights' are stifling creativity because you have to be constantly looking over your shoulder regarding everything you put in a scene. Artists need to lobby for some rights-of-expression-and-creativity. Unfortunately most artists can't afford the cost of lobbying. Corporations can afford it. Estates can. Movie stars can. There's actually been a bit of criticism in high places about the recent changes to the copyright laws in the US as being too restrictive on creative expression. To be perfectly safe, I'll go back to just landscapes in Bryce. LOL But then who knows if it's okay to even do Mt. Rushmore.

LadySilverMage, how do you account for Spitting Image then? In case you don't know it, it's (was?) a humourous series done by using animated characters in the likeness of various politicians and other known figures. For instance, if you've seen video for "Land of Confusion" by Genesis, that's Spitting Image. the figures are very recognisable.

Yeah, as for my take on it, if I decide to use a celebrity likeness, I'm not going to worry about it and I'm going to do what I damned well please. They can try to sue me, but I won't go to court. Sure, they'll win by default because I don't show up, but it won't stop me. TPB can tell me what pictures I can or can't make after they shoot me, if they're willing to take it that far. And if they do, I'll be dead and won't care. Now I seriously think I'm going to do some, just because those laws are bullshit. If people had inborn rights to their appearance, no one else would ever look like them, and the goddess would certainly not make twins. So the law, in this case, is wrong, and full of shit, and I will disregard it until they correct it or kill me over it. I have nothing but contempt for court anyway.

Larry Flynt as publisher of Hustler won a case many years ago that clear and obvious satires of public figures were fair uses of their likenesses, even if they were depicted doing something that would be grossly objectionable to them in real life. I don't know if that precedent has since been overturned, as far as satire goes, though.

I think that satire is "fair game", as long as it is obviously a parody. We have in France a show, much like Spitting Image which has been on TV for more than 10 years. Actually, it was built by copying Spitting Image AND a XIX century tradition of using puppets for political satire (was called Guignol at those times). On the other hand, don't think that editing terrain will be safe : there has been a case won against a geographical magazine. This magazine had published the photo of a beautiful landscape. Someone recognised his property (no house, just land) in a part of the photo and demanded indemnisation for this breach of private life. An he won... The fact is : can we do something nowadays, however inoocent, without thinking about potential legal consequences ?

Thanks milamber 42. I thought that might be the case. In France and in GB there are TV shows with puppet look alikes that do political satire. Very strong satire, sometimes. Politicians wouldn't dare complain, it would hurt their image more. This is a very interesting thread.

Attached Link: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hustler.html

Regarding the Flynt v. Falwell, (where the item was clearly labled as "ad parody -- not to be taken seriously.") from Chief Justice Rehenquist wrote in the 8-0 opinion: "The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed." Tune in to any of the late night talk shows or Saturday Night Live and you'll see polititians and celebs satiricaly skewered with lookalikes and doctored photos all the time. There's a difference between satire and outright lies passed off as fact ala the Enquirer. The Constitution hasn't been entirely gutted yet but they're working on it.

"Sounds to me like all these 'rights' are stifling creativity because you have to be constantly looking over your shoulder regarding everything you put in a scene." Not at all. An artist can be as creative as they want - it's actually not very creative to use someone else's face anyhow. Parody and Satire don't take alot of creativity. Simply look for their weakness and enlarge it - where is the creativity or originality in that? Surprisingly many "celebrities" will give permission for comedy shows - it promotes them as well. However late night television, magazines and other types of media have a different exemption than the average joe schmoe artist. Basically just because you consider it a satire or parody does not mean that the courts will as well. And the internet can be even harsher when there are companies like Cyber-Tracker who specifically check for the use of not only the persons image but the use of their name to attract business/visitors and have won or settled their cases time and again. I didn't make the laws, I don't enforce the laws and IANAL (just a law school dropout who left for family reasons). Copyright, trademark laws can always be fuzzy and are often judged differently in different cases. I can't tell you why certain companies are exempt I know nothing about their business and contracts. That said, if you don't know the specifics behind the scenes don't assume that everything is as it appears. For all we know celebrities have given permission for their likenesses to be used on Spitting Image, do you know for certain they haven't? Sometimes to encourage a celebrity to let their likeness be used money is donated to a charity. Besides people will do what they want to anyhow, I'm just providing you with excerpts of the law and places for you to find out more. I wonder though how many in this thread actually read any of the informational links provided here? Honestly, I don't think many do especially if it goes against what someone wants to do then it gets ignored. It's surprising how many don't care about the rights of others - but if someone borrows the images or face of an artist and parodies it or cuts the image up to use in their work how many screaming about artistic rights would agree then that it's artistic creativity? Especially if you received little to no compensation for your face/work and the final artist received a huge compensation? From the threads we've seen here regarding "my images stolen" and "this site is using the works of...." I don't think the community as a whole would be too thrilled if the shoe was on the other foot. Now I'm off I have work to do today sigh

't's actually not very creative to use someone else's face anyhow' LSM, that's a rather judgemental thing to type in such broad strokes. It can be tremendously creative to use someone else's face. 'Basically just because you consider it a satire or parody does not mean that the courts will as well.' Yes, but fuck the courts. They are a part of a corrupt government that we're forced to suffer the humiliation and inconvenience of having to pay for. The very fact that there are cases where artists have been attacked in a legal way is enough reason for more artists to do it and shove it down the throats of the Hollywood bourgeouise. 'if someone borrows the images or face of an artist and parodies it or cuts the image up to use in their work how many screaming about artistic rights would agree then that it's artistic creativity' Well, at least one here, as far as the face goes. THe images are another story. 'Especially if you received little to no compensation for your face/work and the final artist received a huge compensation?' I got my face for free, except for the slight creases here and there, which were earned. The final artist has gone to the effort to simulate that specific face, which is a lot harder than making a 'generic' face. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not suffering an investment loss.

"'t's actually not very creative to use someone else's face anyhow' LSM, that's a rather judgemental thing to type in such broad strokes. It can be tremendously creative to use someone else's face." _dodger I meant that tongue in cheek - I probably should have typed that (why isn't there a tongue in cheek emoticon??) "I got my face for free, except for the slight creases here and there, which were earned. The final artist has gone to the effort to simulate that specific face, which is a lot harder than making a 'generic' face. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not suffering an investment loss. " Actually if you are a celebrity your face is not free lol it takes alot of hard work and promotion of that face and the persona that makes it a viable celebrity. For a celebrity it isn't just a "face" it is a persona they have strived and sepnt money to promote. If the final result was put to use to have you in a sex act with an animal or a president or something truly despicable would that be ok too? Extremes I know, but if you were very anti-drugs and it showed you with a bong would you be ok with that? Womens rights activist and the image portrayed you raping someone? That is what parody and satire often becomes. As for the government, not going to argue with you there.

LadySilverMage, may be you are taking the argument of satire too far. Political shows never end up in such extremes. Only extremists do, and they are not the types to be bothered by laws and rules. Or even just good education... Caricature is all right as long as it doesn't cross the line of plain insult or outright lie. I think you get a point by saying that a public person's face is quite a piece of work. I know a few aesthetics surgeons that can document the fact. But this is an investment : they do this because they want to stay in the public view. They have to take the bad with the good. They get fame and the big bucks, but they must live with mockery and loss of private life. Your post proves the point that there can be some imagination when using someone else's looks. But, Lady, forcing an animal to have sex with a president ! What will the wildlife fund think of this cruelty to animals ?!? (or may be I misunderstood something ?) ;-) Compiler

L I think it'sbecause emoticon's don't have cheeks... hmm... :^(P) that doesn't work. Ahh well. 'If the final result was put to use to have you in a sex act with an animal or a president or something truly despicable would that be ok too?' Actually, I'd probably laugh my arse off and put it up on my website if I found that someone did that. Especially if it was a small rodent. But I've been told I have a twisted sense of humour. 'if you were very anti-drugs and it showed you with a bong would you be ok with that' Doubly so, and it would behoove the art community to poke fun at me ni such circumstances, at least if I were in the pubilc eye. Such are the fortunes of fame. I'm sure Renderosity wouldn't allow it up, but someone would somewhere. 'Womens rights activist and the image portrayed you raping someone' That's illegal for an entirely different reason, if I'm not mistaken. If it was done in a nonpornographic way, then it wuold probably be okay. But then, having a POV like mine makes it rather impossible that I could be a women's rights activist or an anti-drug activist. Government thing... I see the US government in the following light: You order a bowl of soup at a restaurant. It comes with not just one, but twelve flies in various stages of death walliging about in it. You tell the waiter you don't want it and he informs you that it's the soup everyone gets and you stil have to pay for it. You say, 'screw this, I'm not paying for something I didn't order' so they lock you in the walk-in until you agree to not only pay for the soup, but also for the meals (and a Budweiser) of a welfare mother with seventeen kids sitting over in the smoking section. If you agree and finally get let out of the walk-in, you're asked for ID every time you get up to use the john whether or not you've ordered anything alcoholic to drink. IF you drop your fork, you can't have another one. Why not just go to another restaurant? Because there are only three restaurants on this island, and since you accidentally went to this one first, one of the others won't have you and the other will abuse you because you were here. 'Waiter, this government is not what I ordered, I'd like you to take it back and either fix it or take it off my bill.' Yeah, you could say that in a perfect world. The US Constitution -- that was this piece of paper with soe words written on it that was once used to determine the rest of the laws, long, long ago -- provides no one with the right to privacy. It's not in there. The closest there is is that you can't have your home, your person, or a locked metal box searched without a judge first deciding that there's a good enough excuse. The very fact that we have laws that protect the average Joe is a privilege, and one that I don't feel is consistent with fame. Now, there is a circumstance in which smeone famous should be entitled to the privilege of privacy, I think -- washed-up stars should be allowed to resume a normal, private life. People should be allowed to reject celebrity status if they stumble into it, too. If you save someone from a burning building you should have the right to refuse interviews and avoid the public eye. But someone who deliberately bases their career around being famous should take the good with the bad, even if that means digitally manipulated photos of them in a cmopromising situation with aCassowary and the president. It should be noted that in the US it goes both ways -- not only should being famous put you in the clear to be ridiculed by people making pictures of you having sex with the president, but having sex with the president apparently will also make you famous.

Hmmm, Phyllis Schlafly, Shrub and a large flightless bird? It has promise. Personally, I always wanted to see Col. Sanders, the Pizza Hut girl and the Taco Bell chihauha. I think if your parody had clear satiric intent and wasn't pornographic, you'd have the ACLU, the New York Times and a lot of other people helping defend you. Even Justice Scalia recognizes satire as protected speech. One does have to use some common sense. Posting a "Shoot the President" game would probably earn you a visit from the Secret Service.

So what about celebrity lookalikes? There are people who make a living out of looking very like someone famous, even if they don't use that person's name. With so many people, it's not surprising that some duplication of facial features occurs. So if there exists someone who looks exactly like Ms Schiffer, a Poser model might be said to be modelled on the double and not the original Ms Schiffer.

Yeah...but then the double would sue you for taking away business. LOL

Actually,I think your best bet is to name it someone other than the celebrity and claim that it is a duplicate of a lookalike of that celebrity, then name a lookalike who doesn't exist. B^)

DAZ bought the rights to reproduce Ms. Goddard's skin as a texture, and to reproduce her face/body shape and sell the results. (I just wish I was there when they took the photographs (evil grin)...) /P