Okay here is the deal, I have noticed several figures that are related to current politicians and using the politician's names. I have no problem with this, but what I do have a problem with is that a few years back when I tried to sell a morph of a looks like _______ I was told I could not because of issues with selling likeness of a public figure.
Has the rules changed?

Quote - Okay here is the deal, I have noticed several figures that are related to current politicians and using the politician's names. I have no problem with this, but what I do have a problem with is that a few years back when I tried to sell a morph of a looks like _______ I was told I could not because of issues with selling likeness of a public figure.
Has the rules changed?

I don't know if the rules changed or not but there are plenty of morphs out there for many figures
that I would say are quite suspect as far as likeness goes. They usually alter the name a little
and that seems to be ok. Like if the name is the celeb Peter so and so name it Pete or if it's Jessica so and so name it Jessi etc. Personally I have nothing against look alike morphs but
I understand the need to be careful not to get into legal issues it could cause. As far as figures
go It seems to be ok. I saw those political figures you mentioned. Good question. Btw I don't
think the real political figures would have a problem with it. More publicity LOL.

This issue came up in the copyright forum a few times.

It has to do with the fact that one is a public figure as in politician, and the other is a public figure as in "celebrity".

Let's use Arney for a moment.  Before he became a politician, yes he was in the public eye, but he was just a celebrity, so making a look-a-like using him and tagging his name to it was a copyright no-no because even though he was a famous celebrity he was still just another private citizen.  But now that he is in the public eye as a politician his likeness is now public domain, meaning you can make a look-a-like and tag his name to it.

However, if he ever goes back to being just a "celebrity" and no longer a politician, I believe it all reverts back to  copyright no-no because he is just another private citizen then. However, I think anything that was done while he was in the role of politician would still be ok.  But Im not entirely sure of that so you better ask about this area in the copyright forum.

It probably has something to do with celebrities making money off of their looks and style and photos etc... while politicians don't do it on basis of physical appearance ...
...at least not the way that actors do :lol:

in regard to arnold, read up on his legal actions (as gubernator) against governator ale
and the arnold bobbleheads.  although arnold has allowed some uses of his image
in legit cases (e.g. publicity for the indigenous tribes), it's never a good idea to declare that
somebody else has no rights IMVHO.  I ain't a lawyer.

A president, governor, etc can't restrict use of his likeness while they are in office. That's why content paradise was able to offer that George Bush character (i dunno if they still do).

That's why they can make things like that "little bush" cartoon.

Political speech and satire have NO (as in zero) restrictions.

Once a politician it's allways and forever in the public domain.

Quote - It probably has something to do with celebrities making money off of their looks and style and photos etc... while politicians don't do it on basis of physical appearance ...
...at least not the way that actors do :lol:

You tagged it.

A celebrity's likeness and name are marketable products, and a form of brand recognition. Just like someone selling semiconductors with the word "Intel" stamped on them would run into trouble very, very quickly, building a 3d model that looked like Paris Hilton and selling it under that name would quickly find you in up to your neck in a coterie of lawyers.

So why are politicians different? Well, the ridicule and parody of any government figure and/or institution is totally cool under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This extends to commercial products with the name and likeness of said politician or organization.

Otherwise, a politician or institution could use existing copyright or trademark law to stifle dissent very quickly.

The only loophole in all of this is if you were to outright pretend that you were that person or organization in order to extort or make demands for consideration which you are not otherwise entitled to (which would be fraud on your part). Otherwise, have at it. :)

/P

Quote - So why are politicians different? Well, the ridicule and parody of any government figure and/or institution is totally cool under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This extends to commercial products with the name and likeness of said politician or organization.

Otherwise, a politician or institution could use existing copyright or trademark law to stifle dissent very quickly.

/P

Dissent? In America??? No way! Give them time they are working on it.

SO from what I am reading it is okay to make a politician who is alive and kicking, but not okay to make a likeness of dead person  who married a baseball  lengend stars and even might have banged a dead president?

Just change the name. Thats what many other merchants do. I could name a dozen or more products for V4 that not only have a likeness of a known celeb but actually have the movie theme to go with it.  Some of them are very very obvious.

Quote - SO from what I am reading it is okay to make a politician who is alive and kicking, but not okay to make a likeness of dead person  who married a baseball  legend stars and even might have banged a dead president?

No, you can make a figure of a politician who's currently in office, but not one who's gone back to private life. Bush is fair game now, but after he leaves office he'll be off limits. Then whoever wins the upcoming election will be fair game.

*"No, you can make a figure of a politician who's currently in office, but not one who's gone back to private life. "

*I believe you are in error on this.
Both the likeness AND the historical events/behaviors remain in public domain. Nothing excludes past, present or even future political or satorical speech. No time limit exist.

From now untill eternity Bush will be fare game for political or satorical writings and images. The same also now include Arnold S, George Washington, James Polk or Richard Nixon. No time limit exist.

Forever and ever they (and there likeness's) remain in the public domain because they were once in the realm of politics. Fame does not equal "celebrity".

It's just one of the cost of a possible political life. It's not even a requirement that you WIN to have this happen. Just RUNNING for political office (even dog catcher)  you loose all rights to your images, likenesses and writings forever.

Mr Penguinisto got it right in one--

*"So why are politicians different? Well, the ridicule and parody of any government figure and/or institution is totally cool under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This extends to commercial products with the name and likeness of said politician or organization.

Otherwise, a politician or institution could use existing copyright or trademark law to stifle dissent very quickly."

I just hope that no one ever plans to re-create our beloved Silvio with Poser. Every computer in the world would crash just at the thought to have him in its runtime.

Giorgio

Having read all the above, I find myself wondering if you can really copyright yourself?

I can understand celebs not being happy with 3D likenesses being distributed, but I don't think they could use copyright law to stop it. And anyway, surely their parents, as 'creators', would be the copyright holders? Privacy laws could be brought into play, but are you really invading the celeb's privacy by making a 3D puppet of them?

In the UK we used to have a satirical TV show called 'Spitting Image' which featured latex puppets of, well, just about anybody in the public eye; far from being annoyed by this, many considered that being featured showed that they were 'someone'.

Spitting Image used to give me the creeps, especially the Margaret Thatcher one, lol!

Quote - Having read all the above, I find myself wondering if you can really copyright yourself?

I can understand celebs not being happy with 3D likenesses being distributed, but I don't think they could use copyright law to stop it. And anyway, surely their parents, as 'creators', would be the copyright holders? Privacy laws could be brought into play, but are you really invading the celeb's privacy by making a 3D puppet of them?

In the UK we used to have a satirical TV show called 'Spitting Image' which featured latex puppets of, well, just about anybody in the public eye; far from being annoyed by this, many considered that being featured showed that they were 'someone'.

Didn't Phil Collins and Genesis use these in one of their vids a few years back? I'd like to see some likenesses made of the Young ones Mike, Adrian, Rick and Neil....lol!

I don't think there is any difference between how celebrities, politicians, and private citizen images are allowably used.

It's one thing to satirically use a likeness of a person.  Selling that likeness is a whole other issue. I'm not 100% sure, butI don't think there's anything in copyright or trademark law that defines different allowances for infringement based on whether a person is a celebrity or politician or private citizens. There is a difference in how those individuals decide to protect the use of their images. A politician may decide not to go after infringers because their earnings are based on their political positions and doings, so they might not be vigorously defending their likenesses.  It doesn't mean that they cannot.

Quote - Just change the name. Thats what many other merchants do. I could name a dozen or more products for V4 that not only have a likeness of a known celeb but actually have the movie theme to go with it.  Some of them are very very obvious.

I did do that at the time and resubmitted but was told due to the same figure as submitted before and the likeness of the figure I could not resubmit the morph pack. I still have the files someplace on my system and just may sell them on my website. Does any one still use V2? I might have to try to convert the Morph to V3 or V4.

Quote - SO from what I am reading it is okay to make a politician who is alive and kicking, but not okay to make a likeness of dead person  who married a baseball  lengend stars and even might have banged a dead president?

Yeah, they're treated differently. Peng has a petty good explanation. I remember reading copyright legaleese about it few years ago when I had to deal with it at work, but don't remember a lot of detail about it off the top of my head at the moment, other then remembering they're treated differently.
I'll have to think about it a bit before I can think of some buzzwords to google some reference material that explains what I vaguely remember.

Well today at work (where I am stuck for the next few hours) had lunch with our company lawyer. He is usually good about giving free advise, just as long as we don't quote him. Well I am breaking his rule.

He states that we can make a looks like person a but cannot in any legal way call them person a. He said this is true with Celebs, Politicians and fictional characters that we don't create without the person's permission because legally you cannot make a profit by using the name in any product but can state it is based on appearance of person a.

With politicians, it's pretty much fair game across-the-board.  With celebrities, it's something of a gray area.  Paparazzi are always looking for that humiliating shot of Brittany Spears or of Lindsay Lohan that will net them a cool $250,000 payday from the National Enquirer.......which amounts to selling the celeb's likeness.  And it's done all of the time, without any legal consequences to the photographers -- much to the anger & irritation of many celebrities.  However, there are sometimes legal consequences which accrue to the celebrities themselves if they or if their bodyguards physically attack the annoying paparazzi -- or try to smash their cameras.  So it's not clear-cut that there's "no use" of celebrity images allowed under the law.

Anyone remember that controversial movie which depicted the violent and bloody assassination of Bill Gates a couple of years ago?  Did Bill Gates sue the movie producers?  Could he have done so?  Hint: Bill Gates is not a politician.........

There are some legal advantages to being a nobody:

This is semi-related -- google is planning on implementing changes to their mapping services that will blur the faces of people in street scenes --

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080514214733.2n13nqsx&show_article=1

As most photographers know, some people are hyper-phobic about the idea of having their picture taken.  It must be tough for those types of people in today's world -- where your picture gets taken many times, every day.  Unless if you never go out anywhere.......and even then it's doubtful.  Your picture might be being taken while you are outside in your yard........the era of Big Brother is, no doubt, just around the corner.  In fact, it's already here --

.......excuse me, someone's knocking hard on my front door...............

My understanding is that you can sell the likeness as long as you don't use the name and I think that right now Rendo is violating the law by allow these figures to be sold with the actual person's name.
See http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/rights-of-publicity-and-privacy.html

When Linday Lohan's image (in a "compromising position") is on the cover of the National Enquirer -- the tabloid most certainly "uses her name" & her image to sell papers.  Which is clearly a "commercial use" of a celebrity's name & likeness.

The issue of celebrity likenesses isn't black-and-white, as some would have it.

BTW - there's a website which is dedicated to no other purpose than mocking Tom Cruise and his Scientology-related beliefs.  That website most definitely uses the image of Tom Cruise -- as well as his name -- all of the time.  He sued them to try to shut them down.  He lost.  The website is still humming right along today, much to the irritation of Mr. Cruise.

Quote - With politicians, it's pretty much fair game across-the-board.  With celebrities, it's something of a gray area.  Paparazzi are always looking for that humiliating shot of Brittany Spears or of Lindsay Lohan that will net them a cool $250,000 payday from the National Enquirer.......which amounts to selling the celeb's likeness.  And it's done all of the time, without any legal consequences to the photographers -- much to the anger & irritation of many celebrities. 

This is due to a loophole in IP laws allowing Journalistic/News works (on any media) as exempt. Celeb gossip does count as journalism, as do blogs and websites under certain conditions. They're not selling the celeb's likeness, but instead they're selling journalistic recordings (be they video or photographic) that happen to concern said celebrity.

That however is way tangent to the main point of the original post - the commercial sale/reproduction of someone's name and/or likeness. Try to do that on a celeb (and be noticed)? You'll have lawyers crawling into your rectum with summonses in their hands, and money on their minds.

While legally, you can simply change the name and be fairly safe, (yes, this is true), let's be practical about this for a minute. Joe Poserdom isn't likely to be a bazillionaire with a retained lawyer on speed-dial. The celeb who gets miffed at his or her likeness being sold OTOH about will likely have generous amounts of money and dedicated legal assistance on tap. The discovery phase of any lawsuit would likely bankrupt a typical Rendo merchie - let alone the suit itself, and letting still further alone any appeals processes.

To put it in perspective, let's do a hypothetical. I build a morph that looks dead-on like a certain female celebrity. I name it "London Motel6" and sell the crap out of it. Pervs and artists everywhere rejoice. I start to make a really big pile of dough out of it. Then a C&D shows up. Rendo would likely drop the product from RMP like it were a radioactive potato about to go critical just to steer clear of the whole thing - that absolves them under DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. The celeb is not impressed. You see, someone made a hyper-realistic render of a chick that looks just like her doing self-degrading things to a mesh that looks exactly like George W. Bush. Now she wants damages. Her lawyers want a new Jaguar apiece. Rendo is clear of any lawsuit. The artist who put that image together is anonymous, and nowhere to be credibly located on the Internet. Guess who that leaves as the target?  Right or wrong, I would now have to fund a defense against the thing. I do pretty well financially, but Lord knows I don't have that kind of bank...

Quote - This is semi-related -- google is planning on implementing changes to their mapping services that will blur the faces of people in street scenes --

Now this one is closer. IP laws and photography (as well as video) usually require model releases from anybody clearly depicted and individually identifiable, except under very narrow circumstances (like Journalism ferinstance). Of course you can ignore that, but you risk having the person depicted suing the crap out of you for damages (or royalties - depending).

/P

*SO from what I am reading it is okay to make a politician who is alive and kicking, but not okay to make a likeness of dead person  who married a baseball  lengend stars and even might have banged a dead president?

*Shirley someone's tried Marylin Monroe?...;)

Secondary political figures like Marylin Monroe or Monica Lewenski(sp?) or Dolly Madason(sp?) are fair game but only when in association.

A pack with a model of Marylin Monroe AND JFK might be exempt, whereas just a single pack of MM would not.

Association and subject also count.

Quote - This is due to a loophole in IP laws allowing Journalistic/News works (on any media) as exempt. Celeb gossip does count as journalism, as do blogs and websites under certain conditions. They're not selling the celeb's likeness, but instead they're selling journalistic recordings (be they video or photographic) that happen to concern said celebrity.

That however is way tangent to the main point of the original post - the commercial sale/reproduction of someone's name and/or likeness. Try to do that on a celeb (and be noticed)? You'll have lawyers crawling into your rectum with summonses in their hands, and money on their minds.

While legally, you can simply change the name and be fairly safe, (yes, this is true), let's be practical about this for a minute. Joe Poserdom isn't likely to be a bazillionaire with a retained lawyer on speed-dial. The celeb who gets miffed at his or her likeness being sold OTOH about will likely have generous amounts of money and dedicated legal assistance on tap. The discovery phase of any lawsuit would likely bankrupt a typical Rendo merchie - let alone the suit itself, and letting still further alone any appeals processes.

To put it in perspective, let's do a hypothetical. I build a morph that looks dead-on like a certain female celebrity. I name it "London Motel6" and sell the crap out of it. Pervs and artists everywhere rejoice. I start to make a really big pile of dough out of it. Then a C&D shows up. Rendo would likely drop the product from RMP like it were a radioactive potato about to go critical just to steer clear of the whole thing - that absolves them under DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. The celeb is not impressed. You see, someone made a hyper-realistic render of a chick that looks just like her doing self-degrading things to a mesh that looks exactly like George W. Bush. Now she wants damages. Her lawyers want a new Jaguar apiece. Rendo is clear of any lawsuit. The artist who put that image together is anonymous, and nowhere to be credibly located on the Internet. Guess who that leaves as the target?  Right or wrong, I would now have to fund a defense against the thing. I do pretty well financially, but Lord knows I don't have that kind of bank...

Good thing that nothing like this has ever happened.  In spite of considerable forum speculation dedicated to building such imaginary scenarios for us over the years.

The law on such matters is never as cut-'n-dried as many people would like to make it out to be.  A website dedicated to the mockery of Tom Cruise as an individual gets away with it -- but a website named "EverybodyHatesBillSmith.com" would be a definite cause for legal action.....perhaps even for criminal action.

Yes, celebrities can attempt to take certain actions over the use of their name & image.  But they don't always win when they do.   The courts themselves are a roll of the dice.   Or perhaps more like a combination of a dice roll and a chessboard played out together.  Would that the laws were more straightforward & clear.  But they aren't.  Each individual situation has to be litigated individually, and even then: the final results are often inconsistent across cases.

I wonder why Bill Gates did not sue over his fictionalized death in the movie Nothing So Strange?  He certainly had (and has) the money to do so.  And he's no politician.

Make a mockumentary movie about assassinating your neighbor -- and I think that a lawsuit would likely follow.  Once again: perhaps even criminal charges.  But not when the fictional assassination involves a non-politician -- but yet a public figure -- such as Bill Gates.

Quote -
Good thing that nothing like this has ever happened.  In spite of considerable forum speculation dedicated to building such imaginary scenarios for us over the years.

When it comes to basic concepts, the RIAA disagrees with you. They've managed to make quite a tidy sum when it comes to extracting some rather painful settlements without so much as a court filing. Come to think of it, so has the MPAA.

IF you want to flirt with such a scenario, go right ahead ;)

Quote - The law on such matters is never as cut-'n-dried as many people would like to make it out to be.

It all depends on context. You also keep attempting to muddy up that context with tangents and semi-relevant (and sometimes irrelevant) scenarios, then claim it's all too fuzzy to tell.

Personally, and professionally (after all these are business transactions), unless you have gonads of uranium (and brains to match), you'd probably be better off steering clear of any potential legal harm - at least until you can afford bigger lawyers than anyone you might offend on a civil tort level. Political figures are pretty much clear for blatantly obvious reasons. Celebrities OTOH? Hey - it's your finances.

Quote - A website dedicated to the mockery of Tom Cruise as an individual gets away with it -- but a website named "EverybodyHatesBillSmith.com" would be a definite cause for legal action.....perhaps even for criminal action.

You're confusing the issue... again. Nobody is making a non-political and purely commercial profit off of Tom Cruises' likeness or name. That's all done in the context of opinion, parody, and/or half a dozen other perfectly legal avenues of expressing free speech. If anything, such sites have a bigger chance of running afoul against libel laws than they do of copyright or trademark violations.

The tangent has nothing to do with selling on a celebrity's likeness or name in a purely commercial setting.

/P

Quote - I wonder why Bill Gates did not sue over his fictionalized death in the movie Nothing So Strange?  He certainly had (and has) the money to do so.  And he's no politician.

He doesn't have to care? He didn't want to dignify a director and his movie with the press that such a lawsuit would generate? He gave permission and/or was paid consideration or royalties to do so?

It also has no relevant context (again) with the pure commercial sales of a person's likeness and use of their name.

/P

As I don't download illegal music files, pirate software, or pirate movies  -- I'm not too concerned.

That point about Tom Cruise....?  The website in question sells t-shirts, mugs, handbags, and various other paraphernalia with the name of Tom Cruise on them.  Perhaps that's irrelevant, too........

As for the rest: thanks for the legal advice -- I'll take it as being worth what it cost me.  I still wonder why Bill Gates didn't sue........?

Quote - > Quote - I wonder why Bill Gates did not sue over his fictionalized death in the movie Nothing So Strange?  He certainly had (and has) the money to do so.  And he's no politician.

He doesn't have to care? He didn't want to dignify a director and his movie with the press that such a lawsuit would generate? He gave permission and/or was paid consideration or royalties to do so?

It also has no relevant context (again) with the pure commercial sales of a person's likeness and use of their name.

/P

On that score -- your guess is as good as mine.  Which is the point here.

Quote - As I don't download illegal music files, pirate software, or pirate movies  -- I'm not too concerned.

That point about Tom Cruise....?  The website in question sells t-shirts, mugs, handbags, and various other paraphernalia with the name of Tom Cruise on them.  Perhaps that's irrelevant, too........

Considering the right of parody (First Amendment again), yes it probably is irrelevant.

The items in the RMP make no comment, no position, no opinion. In other words, a purely commercial transaction.

Quote - As for the rest: thanks for the legal advice

It's not legal advice; just practical business advice ;)

/P

Historical figures are apparently open game, even if NOT politicians! Note this: www.contentparadise.com/us/user/jules_verne_3d_for_poser_hdm_004_08_pos_product_37952

Content Paradise checks for potential lawsuits before submission. Historical figures (Noted or famed or infamous figures who are now dead) are public domain.  As such, Velvet Elvises and Marylyn Monroes silk-screening are perfectly legal under 'fair use' laws where they are not put into a commercial (advertisement or endorsement based) image or product. Negotiated and fee-based usage for commercial projects are negotiated from the estate of the aforementioned celebrities.

IE: Dolly Parton (Living celeb) appeared with the moving image of Elvis (dead celeb) in an advertisement promoting the state of Tennessee (where dead celeb resided before becoming dead) in a long ad campaign and paid  the Presly family for the use.  THIS is the reason why Elvis made 46.2 MILLION DOLLARS last year (though he fights valiantly to remain dead) as the top-rated money-earning dead guy from last year!

Under most fair use laws (Do what you want with image that does NOT make money, pornographic or in gross bad taste)  Most people's estates won't care. Stick them in ads or porno and you are begging for a law-suit.

Given that most "poser celebs" look little like the real-world appearances of the famous, as long as you do not claim that so and so IS Elvis or Marylyn, Nothing can be really proven in a court of law.

Living people are more likely to sue than the estates of the dead, IMO.

Obviously, the business lawyers who are retained by all of the major Poser-related websites (which all sell celebrity 'look-alike' figures) need to come into the forums, do some self-educational reading, & bone up on their business law.  Then -- and only then -- will those lawyers be in a position to properly advise their clients on how to run their respective businesses.

After reading (most of) this thread -- along with a myriad of others just like it over the years, wherein various and sundry Dire Consequences In The Offing™ have been presented to us as being About To Happen Just Around The Corner® -- it's become quite apparent to me that those business lawyers who work for these websites don't have a clue about what they are doing.

Hey -- here's an idea, and a great solution to the problem!  The major Poser websites all need to dump their current crop of lousy business lawyers, and hire a bunch of forum-legal-10-o'clock-scholars® to take the lawyer's places!  That's it!  Then -- and only then -- will the websites in question be properly advised as to what they should and should not do.

whew  That solves that.  And it was a near thing, too!  Problem taken care of -- so now we can rest easy.  The Right People™ will be in charge......finally.  Instead of the business neophytes who are currently running things.  It should be as plain as the proverbial Nose On The Face™ to everybody: those major-website-running Business Neophytes don't know a thing about building and running highly successful websites.  Those neophytes need to attend to the Words of Business Wisdom® coming from forum threads.  Then they'll have the opportunity to run their websites as they should be run -- and just as successfully as their forumite advisers do.

The 'Right People' in charge? LOLOLOLOLOLOL That's priceless!

Xeno...do I detect a wee note of sarcasm? :lol: That reply might have been a bit wordy?

Could it have been pared down to, "The professional peeps on the sites selling the look-alikes have their butts on the line and know more about it than the non-lawyers whistling in the wind." Get over it." ?

Just curious. ^__^ Heh.

Quote - The 'Right People' in charge? LOLOLOLOLOLOL That's priceless!

Xeno...do I detect a wee note of sarcasm? :lol: That reply might have been a bit wordy?

Not in the least.  I'm never sarcastic.    And wordy?  How could you think such a thing?  :sneaky:

(In all seriousness gasp -- my posts generally tend to be quite a bit shorter, on the average, than those of some others -- on the average.)

Quote - Could it have been pared down to, "The professional peeps on the sites selling the look-alikes have their butts on the line and know more about it than the non-lawyers whistling in the wind." Get over it." ?

Just curious. ^__^ Heh.

That's putting it far more succinctly than I did, and there's no doubt that such to-the-point wording saves on space -- but IMHO, it's not quite as much fun to say it that way.  Plus there's the fact that driving a point home effectively  sometimes requires.........that one drive a point home.  Otherwise, you might get buried under an avalanche of plausible-sounding, highly researched, and highly detailed Forum Gobbledegook™.

I've seen an unbelievable number of Worst Case Scenarios™ being presented as Sure Things™ (read: Wishful Thinking®) in the forums over a number of years.  Not one Worst Case Scenario™ has ever come to pass.  Not one -- on this or on any other subject.  But that's never stopped the Forum Prophets Of Doom®  from predicting such Imaginary Disasters Waiting To Happen™ for us on a regular basis.

Based upon their track record thus far: I've got my doubts that the Forum Prophets Of Doom® should be listened to with any degree of seriousness.  But that's just me.  For some others, they are no doubt perceiving what they are hearing as being Pronouncements From The Oracles Of All Wisdom®.

As They™ say:  everyone's entitled to their own opinion.