Hi, Are you allowed to make a likeness of someone well known, give them a new name and sell them to the community?

check out www.daz3d.com look up mandy for V3 theres yours answer

Welp, I'd be very careful about copyright infringement when it comes to lookalikes & copying a famous person or celebrity to make money off them. People will still recognize the person, no matter what form, depending on how famous they are. I don't recommend it. (MHO)

I looked up mandy but did not see any info regarding making look alike heads of famous people- is mandy a look alike of someone famous?

there is some one in the mp that dos it all the time here just look tho the mp you will see what i mean dont know if it is the right or safe thing to do but you know what they say

is mandy a look alike of someone famous? There you go. ;-) Yes, she looks extremely like a particular singer. The thing is, you can do a likeness or a character "inspired by" someone famous, but selling it AS that person, using their name, is probably gonna get you in trouble. bonni

I always thought you had to be licenced to make replica's of famous people? I'd be careful not to cross that line or you may find yourself with a lawsuit someday. (mho) who did you have in mind to make?

Best bet in all things - go with the POV of making something original that way you do something all your own and don't owe anyone, even a likeness, anything.

Unless someone has put some sort of trademark on their appearance, no, they can't legally hassle you for making a model that looks like them, particularly if it has some differences. bonni

As long as you do not use there "skin" for a texture.. i wouldn't see the problem. But you may want to contact ClintH or DebbieM before hand just to make sure.

Legal considerations aside, I've yet to see a celebrity look-like yet that bore more than just a fair likeness to the original, and even that likeness disappears as soon as the expression changes much from the default it was modeled in. I guess the modelers realize this, 'cause the thumbnails and product pages only feature the default, neutral expression I never use on any characters. Closest I guess is the Ann-Marie Celebrity Clone at DAZ, with custom smile morphs - that's the one that actually contracted with the celebrity for use of her likeness. I wouldn't count any likeness as worth much until it can match the original when smiling or grinning.

I'd like to make characters out of some of the famous woman who I thought were incredibly beautiful, but who doubted themselves so much they had radical plastic surgery and now no longer look like themselves. I believe this constitutes legal abandonment of trademark ownership of the old look. Here's my list of sorrow, women who have disappeared and were favorites of mine: Chyna Phillips Jennifer Grey Chelsea Clinton Goldie Hawn and Meg Ryan (they abandoned their mouths) Mariah Carey (body change so radical she is no longer her) Even the Olsen Twins, although beautiful faces disappearing because of just nose-jobs would be a list a mile long. And worst of all, though she only had a little nose work done, is Kate Winslet. ::::: Opera :::::

Unless someone has put some sort of trademark on their appearance, no, they can't legally hassle you for making a model that looks like them, particularly if it has some differences. Yes, they could hassle you, legally. Madonna "IS" a trademark & her own brand name. and I could list a few more famous celebs that have trademaked their names and themselves. If you were to make a model out of Madonna even a likeness and stamped her name on it, she could slap a lawsuit on you for copyright infringement.

Attached Link: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/manship1.htm

Took me a while to dig this out of the copyright forum. I wrote most of this over a year ago in response to a similar question :-) *she could slap a lawsuit on you for copyright infringement.* Technically no. There are two separate areas of law that come into play. Trademark & right of publicity. A celebrity or character portrayed by a celebrity can be trademarked. The actual person is what is protected by the right of publicity[1]. Unless you could show that a specific work was being infringed, copyright wouldn't apply. As an example. Harrison Ford plays Han Solo in the Star Wars movies. The character Han Solo is trademarked by LucasFilms Ltd. and they control how & by whom it is used. Mr. Ford, however, under the right of publicity, has control of how his likeness is exploited. My personal opinion on creating poser models of famous people? It's always easier to ask 1st, rather than having to deal with cease & desist letters, subpoenas, legions of briefcases, & legal pads. Currently the laws are written to control *COMMERCIAL* use of a deceased celebrity likeness. There are no specific provisions prohibiting non-commercial use (there have been individual cases [Comedy III vs Saderup] where non-commercial use HAS been deemed a violation but this hasn't been codified as of yet). However, before you jump on that as an excuse to make a Poser Mariah Carey & put it up in freestuff here, realize that the definiton of "commercial" can be very broad. If I were a lawyer representing Ms Carey, I would argue that freestuff itself as well as the banner advertising is a vehicle to draw traffic to an online store & therefore the free distribution should be prohibited. Another arguement would be that the free distribution of a Poser figure could damage the commercial viability of the property by "watering it down". The hotlink above is to an excellent analysis of fan websites & the right of publicity. It's a bit dated (1999) however much of the information is still valid. Other References: http://www.supnik.com/first.htm http://www.fwrv.com/articles/artrud25.htm http://www.lexopolis.com/salsb/slj/vol-xii/pittman.pdf http://www.jurisnotes.com/acriticalexam.htm http://www.schleimerlaw.com/ELF2Synthespians.htm [1]California Civil Code Section 3344(a)(aka "Right of Publicity")... *"Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.* Standard Disclaimer: Although based an extensive research the above is only *MY* opinion so if you get sued don't bother going to court & say "Well, cooler said it was okay". If this is a project you plan to attempt, research it on your own, consult an attorney, or ASK PERMISSION FIRST!

and just for giggles here's a list of the most significant "right of publicity" cases to date :-) Lots of caselaw precedents 1)Wendt vs Paramount Studios.... George Wendt & John Ratzenberg from the show "Cheers" brought suit against Paramount to prevent them from creating & using animatronic "Norm & Cliff" robots (Paramount called them "Hank *& Bob") in a series of Cheers type airport bars. 2)ETW vs Jireh publishing.... Professional golfer Tiger Woods sued a sports artist claiming that the artists limited edition print infringed his copyright and violated his common law Right of Publicity 3)Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc. v. Capece... Elvis Presley Enterprises sued a restaurant owner alleging that the name of the restaurant, The Velvet Elvis, infringed or diluted plaintiffs federal and common law trademarks and violated its Right of Publicity in Elvis Presleys name. 4)White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc... Vanna White sued Samsung for creating an ad that included a robot in a blond wig and fancy dress standing on a game show set similar to the set used on the television show "Wheel of Fortune. 5)Midler v. Ford Motor Co.... Bette Midler sued Ford because they used a sound-alike to imitate her voice in a commercial. Results (thought I was going to make you look them up didn't you? :-) 1) Settled out of court after Supreme Court refused to dismiss the case 2) Tiger Woods lost 3) EPE won 4) Ms White won 5) Ms Midler won

I wasn't referring to a 'character' though. I'm guessing tthe orginal poster was refering to famous people in general. I believe Madonna copyrighted her likeness as far as I know. Its really not worth it in my opinion. That'd be a lot of hardwork for little money in return. :) *1)Wendt vs Paramount Studios.... George Wendt & John Ratzenberg from the show "Cheers" brought suit against Paramount to prevent them from creating & using animatronic "Norm & Cliff" robots (Paramount called them "Hank & Bob") in a series of Cheers type airport bars. Kidding right? How could they sue over character likeness? They don't own Norm & Cliff copyrights do they? That's unusual. See though, you never know when it comes to famous people. welp, good luck to the orginal poster if they decide to do this and take the chance.

Message edited on: 03/06/2005 02:34

Just to clarify from Renderosity's viewpoint... We would not accept a character into the RMP or Freestuff that was named as a famous person. EG if you submit a free character "Madonna" or "Britney Spears" we wouldn't accept it as named. You may also want to consider, from an ethical standpoint, that famous people have the right to control what their likeness is used for (as cooler stated). Once you've sold a character pack based on, say, Jennifer Lopez, any of your customers could potentially use that character to make her advertise used cars, alcohol, as a virtual spokeshead for a political viewpoint, or (probably most likely) as a virtual pornstar. That's why the Anna-Marie Goddard clone at Daz has a different and more restrictive EULA. As cooler said, you should probably take independent legal advice on your specific situation before deciding on such a course of action. It could be risky, painful and expensive otherwise!

Curious... Then, how is it that human beings alter their looks and publicly advertise themselves as a "fill-in-the-blank" lookalike in order to blantantly use the famous person's looks/notoriety to make money for themselves?

Generally either they, or more often the booking agency they work, for pays a licensing fee in order to use the celebrity name

I've yet to see an Elvis impersonator that actually looked like Elvis...

I did, about 15 or 20 years ago. Hanged if I can remember his name, though. And he really could sing like the King.

So, 4 out of 5 for the plaintiffs, with one case where Woods may have had some agreement beforehand that was breached. But it's surprising to see some guy had to ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the case against him for his bar-robots. De minimis non curat lex.

Actually, my favorite all-time case in a related arena involved 'The Artist Formerly Known As Prince'. After changing his name to the incomprehensible symbol (that had no pronunciation), he tried to sue the BBC because a VJ referred to him as 'Prince' and not '%*$' (however the hell you're supposed to say it). I don't know what the outcome of the case was, but it was right after that that journalists the entire world over began to refer to him as 'The Artist Formerly Known As Prince'. A sneaky way of getting round his idiotic demands. IMO, the best ever example of journalists ganging up to cut a swollen-headed jerk down to size. Should happen more often. mac

LMAO! Couldn't agree more, mac. Wonder what His-Used-To-Be-Highness is calling himself these days?

Prince. He was waiting to get out of a contract with (?) Record Company and once the contract was finished he went back to Prince.

Im a huge fan of madonna and as far as I know she has not trademarked her likeness. She has tons of fan sites that have used her likeness in art depictions,cartoons, blends etc, which she knows about and has no problem with. Madonna only seems to be worried about her music, videos, books and movies being downloaded etc. Which is the main concern of most artists. Some celb's dont care if you do fan art as long as it dosent show them doing something they would not do. Most of the fan sites that deal with madonna have talked to caresse henry her aid and with WB in regaurds to pictures etc on their sites but even the ones who havent have had no problems with her or her camp.

Or, to simplify The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, we simply called him TAFKAP. :-) Curious thing about Poseurs looking like celebrities (or trying to). You know, about looking so much like them that they worry it would imply an endorsement of some kind, etc. I wanted to show "Mandy" to an untrained eye, so I made the quick pic above. I asked, "What famous person is this supposed to look like?" My viewer could not guess, and even after being told, failed to see a strong resemblance. Yes, I bought Mandy, I thought it was a good attempt (and one of the very few I could recognize), but truly, I don't think we have to worry that she would pass for anyone. I just think it's a good texture set I may use on other stuff. So, about making figures that pass for celebrities, I'd say go for it... Unless it's extraordinary, I don't think the actual celeb would think it was her/himself. But celebrities can make great inspiration, because they are actual people, and typically attractive people... And in trying to capture their likeness, we can at least get to a point of saying, "Gee, that doesn't look like Vicky anymore!" :-) By the way, I tried very hard to spin the dials to get a face that looked like Jewel. I found that certain defining features (like downward-curving tear ducts) were not to be had in the standard morph set, so a likeness was impossible by those means. Still searching for a way..... ;)

Who's Mandy?

judy+eternal judy gives FAR more control over the face than any unimesh figure, and far less expensively. Did you mention control over the lacrimal? EJ contains at least 7 morph controls for this area of the eye. ::::: Opera :::::

Im a huge fan of madonna and as far as I know she has not trademarked her likeness. She has tons of fan sites that have used her likeness in art depictions,cartoons, blends etc, which she knows about and has no problem with. Madonna only seems to be worried about her music, videos, books and movies being downloaded etc. Which is the main concern of most artists. I wasn't talking about fan sites. I was referring to her 'image' as part of her trademark & copyright, which, you would NOT be able to place on any product to sell, including a model figure. If you were to make or try to sell a Madonna item, it may be considered copyright infringement. That's all I was trying to say. :)

well there is jepe with his movie men packs 1 and 2 that have look alikes of male actors on 3dcommune and I think here on renderosity. there is a thread male celbs in the commons forum on daz about the work he was doing and suggestions as to figures to make etc. I'm going to have to buy them before someone has a fit and gets them removed. They are quite good I might add.

FreeBass, "Mandy" is the name of a texture & morph pack sold by DAZ. An example of what Mandy looks like is in my post above. If your question is who is Mandy "supposed to be," she is a "3D Celebrity" (product description). If it is not obvious who she's supposed to look like, that supports my belief that these celebrity likenesses are not really close enough to cause people to mistake them for the real thing. Etiquette Question: There seems to be an unwritten rule that we're not to utter the name of the people who these products are supposed to look like. I can understand not saying it in product descriptions, but can somebody explain why these things are not to be spoken of in forums? Or am I just being uptight? Opera, I will have to check out Eternal Judy. Thanks for the tip.

"Etiquette Question: There seems to be an unwritten rule that we're not to utter the name of the people who these products are supposed to look like. I can understand not saying it in product descriptions, but can somebody explain why these things are not to be spoken of in forums? Or am I just being uptight?" I think it's a bleed-thru of the manner in which product descriptions have to be phrased in order to avoid claiming a likeness to a possibly litigious celebrity. The Product description of (for instance) "Ferd FlakeRock" can't claim it is or looks like "Fred Flintstone" without a proper signed release on file, and the creator avoids it in any promo material, postings, or discussions for fear of possible legal action. There's no actual onus against a purchaser or anyone not involved with it's creation or sale posting a pic or stating there's a resemblance as long as they don't label the image with the name "Fred Flintstone" or use it commercially in a manner suggesting endorsement. No one would slam me, for instance for suggesting I fancy a resemblance between the Rae character pak, and Dana Skully or even Gillian Anderson. It's just an opinion. If the Merchant stated or implied it to boost sales, that's another matter. In fact there's a product "Druna 2" on my wishlist because I think could be fiddled with to make a passable Jennifer Connelly or perhaps Laura San Giacomo - and I don't even do portraits as such.

No one can stop you from saying, I think that looks like Jewel, or I don't think it looks like Jewel, at all. You can pitch it pos or neg and still establish the subject of who it might or might not look like. Everybody still gets to have their opinion. Still too touchy to make a product and say, This is my new morph pak, someone said she looks like Madonna but I assure you I just spun some dials that looked good. You can still use that defense, just don't mention Madonna in your product description.

Wasn't Larry Flynt's case about something along these lines? I thought he won his case about using the likeness of real people in satire because it was considered a freedom of speech...maybe I'm way off.

Satire does hold some legal foothold, not being a lawyer I don't know how far it can go before it can become libelous or slander. Look at Spitting Image, or South Park, they don't even change the names of the people they're trashing. Political cartoons run everyday with easily identifiable characters and we know how flattering those are. : O Who did the Sean Connery 007 character I've seen floating around? Is that one of the movie guys mentioned?

It depends on who it is. If it's a model or actor, then no. They get paid for their image/face/body. However, tabloids and newspapers freely use celebrity images to sell their news papers. Sometimes these tabloids get sued if the articles are meant to assassinate character, but otherwise nothing happens. Also, if it's a political figure, you do not need their permission to use their image. At least in Canada. There was a bunch of ruckass going on where I live about a company who pirated our Mayor's face and put it on a billboard to help sell their product. Because the Mayor is a political public servent, his image was allowed to be used without financial compensation to him. I also have a question about this "Mandy" person. Who is she besides a Poser 3D Celebrity? Is she an actress, movie star, singer?

It was tenuously mentioned that they thought she looked like Jewel, the singer. For the obvious reasons the maker can't make any such allusions and for paranoia reasons made clear in earlier parts of this thread no one wanted to come out and say it clearly. I just tried re-scanning the whole thing looking to quote the person but couldn't see it. It's way up there ^ somewhere.