Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12395&Form.ShowMessage=1319251

wow...i've been working hard on a lightwave model based on brandon lee...(some of you know this, already). vicki has my ass....just worked out that way. i can't sue daz because vicki has my ass. sooo, why can someone sue if there are facial similarities? we can certainly sketch/paint likenesses of anyone who is in the public eye without being penalized. look at the political cartoons. i don't think you have the correct information. my brandon lee model can be sold, i think, as long as i don't tout it as a "brandon lee" look alike model. then, i am using the name.

You're certainly right (I'm not a lawyer so I don't know for sure). In the case mentioned, it was not only the likeness that had been marketed and used as a commercial argument, but also his name and his position as Germany's soccer team's goal keeper, so that's not simply a case of suing someone because his 3D model just happen to have some common traits with a celebrity. On the other hand, in another thread in this forum, someone mentioned a distinction to be made between an accidental likeness in some body features (like Vicky and you) and the complete likeness of the two. I understood (but I may be wrong) that if a "common man" would mistake the 3D model for a representation of the actual person, a copyright issue might occur. This said, I'm not quite sure that anyone actually copyrighted his name or looks. And german law (which Oliver Kahn has brought the case to) is probably different from US law when in the field of privacy protection and copyrights. And political cartoons are another matter entirely (at least in French law). So, as I said in the original post, I just wanted to point to a potential problem, that's all. I do not claim to have any kind of answer, but I think the question is not all that stupid either. By the way, you said "i don't think you have the correct information." What makes you thinks that the info above (which is only about Oliver Kahn suing a company) is incorrect ?

sorry, i was actually referring to the fact that so many cartoonists do caricatures without a 2nd thought.

No problemo, poppi... best pop,pop to you.

This isn't something I'd worry about, given the caution that Poppi already described. Take a look, for example, at the promo shots for DAZ' "Razzle Dazzle" hair. The image is clearly intended to evoke Rene Zellweger (sp?) in "Chicago." That hair, that face, and that prodcuct title, and the time at which the product was released all add up. But DAZ didn't do anything wrong at all. Nobody is saying that the mesh is literally supposed to be the actress, and the owners of the "Chicago" properties can't claim ownership of the colloquialism "razzle dazzle" or period hairstyles. On the other hand, when people go naming their look-alikes after the characters they're based on, as they frequently do, they risk claims of infringement. I've seen at least three "Hulk" characters for Poser around the 'net. That's over the line.

Well, what would you like them called, "The angry green man formerly known as the Hulk"? ;) I think that as artists, whether we do it with the computer or otherwise, we should have the right to create likenesses of whoever we please. As long as we don't claim that it's a photograph of the person, or lead people to believe it's endorsed by the person, it should be fine.

what about the infinitely popular "housemouse" model, sold by daz? doesn't that housemouse trademark belong to some precious moment type figurine company? if daz can do it, so can i, or you, or aunt hannah. what about folks who make and sell dolls, or sculptures...i know it was long ago, but my grandmother was a dollmaker. there were non of this silly restrictions on her. she could fire up a head of who ever she wanted, (if she could get it right, that is)and charge quite a good bit of money, even back in those days when a coke was a quarter. methinks, somewhere between then and now, some lawyer, somewhere saw a chance to cash in on the talents of others...just by starting an ownership squabble.

Whether you can get away with making a figure look like a celebrity depends in large part on what you do with it. Since many celebrities are celebrities in part because of their looks (e.g., Cindy Crawford), their looks are considered to be their property, and only THEY are allowed to market their faces and figures for financial gain, and they can sue anybody who uses their likeness to sell anything, be it posters, T-shirts, or whatever. For instance, if you drew a picture of Cindy Crawford and made copies and GAVE them away, no problem. However, if you tried to sell them, and if Cindy heard about it, you would be hearing from her lawyers in short order. The same applies to many dead celebrities as well, since their heirs and/or estates retain rights to their likenesses. Bottom line, if you want to use a celebrity's image on anything you plan to sell, or to use it in conjunction with anything you're selling (such as having a picture of a celebrity on the website you're using to sell your hand-made Christmas ornaments or whatnot, thereby implying that the celebrity endorses your product), GET PERMISSION IN WRITING FIRST. Otherwise, you're asking for trouble. Celebrities can and do sue people for that sort of thing. Another area in which you can get into trouble is if you use a celebrity's image in a libelious manner. Political cartoons and other such things are considered OPINION and thus covered under "freedom of the press." Satire is considered a variety of literature and thus likewise covered under freedom of the press. Hope that helps.

"Well, what would you like them called, "The angry green man formerly known as the Hulk"? ;)" :-) I know what you mean, but imagine getting a "cease and desist" letter from Stan Lee's or Marvel's lawyers, refusing on the grounds that the character is too well known in the popular imagination to be protected, and then losing in court to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in damages. Yikes! Perhaps I worded my opinion too strongly by saying "over the line." The keywords are "caution," "common sense," and "consult an attorney if you're unsure." :-) Asking permission of copyright owners never hurts, and sometimes a "go ahead" is granted. I just think that especially when you're copying living celebrities or intellectual properties like Star Wars, Harry Potter, the famous comics characters, etc. it's always prudent to err on the side of caution. I have mixed feelings about copyright in some areas, but at the end of the day, the law is the law, and the party with the more expensive lawyers does tend to have the law on their side, whether that's fair or not. blondie9999, you make an excellent point: Financial exchange is the better part of "commercial useage," even if the product is sold at a financial loss to the artist or modeller. On the other hand, I don't think that fair use provisions under the parody/satire aegeis apply to the sale of character meshes or textures. You could, for example, create a character from Michael 2 to render a satire of a politician, but if you tried to market a "Trent Lott virtual clone," you could be in hot water. People tend to interpret fair use provisions to justify their intentions, but unless they'd actually hold up under legal scrutiny, such justifications could be meaningless as a defense in court.

As a matter of fact, i'm beginning to be a little upset by this copyright craze. I feel it is going a little too far although I's agree that drawing a line is quite difficult in some areas. But I wonder if someone will ever copyright "a muscular way to make air penetrate the lungs" or "a musuclar way to move limbs and articulations" and ask me 1 euro for "every move I make, every breath I take"...

I've already copyrighted them, Compiler... you owe me 1 billion euros... ;)