Hypocrit creators

agreed Casper

What does international copyright law have to say on the subject? It's way out of my area of knowledge, but I'm pretty sure your likeness (as opposed to a photograph of you*) isn't covered by the relevant UK law (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 198 http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law and I don't think it's mentioned in the Berne Convention, is it?

If I paint a picture of Madonna, and try to sell it, what rights under international copyright law do you say she has? I ask because I do not know.

*ETA That is, obviously someone made the photograph, so it's presumably their copyright unless they've agreed otherwise.

I don't think the celebrity's likeness is covered by copyright, and their name certainly isn't. But that doesn't mean they're not protected under other laws.

I thought that the laws protecting individuals' rights to their own likenesses varied from state to state, with California having strong protections due to the movie industry. Whatever the law is, the issue is making money off of something that doesn't belong to the SL content creator.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law
That should cover photographs of people in public in section 8 ACTS THAT ARE ALLOWED - which is why being a paparazzi isn't a crime as you're allowed to sell a picture to a news service.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works
This covers recreations or likeness derived from any other form (ie: a person) and states that the derivation cannot be recreated without the consent of the copyright holder of the original.

A name under UK Copyright is not protected UNLESS it is trademarked...and trust me..Brad and Angelina have done that

and also just simply lazy arses copybotting there work

From the "two wrongs make a right" school of logic?

? That says,Yes, a painting can be derivative of a photograph, but surely that depends on its likeness to the copyright photograph, as a recognizable piece of work. The similarity has to be more just that the photograph and painting are recognizably of the same person, doesn't it?

Trademark isn't the same copyright. And I really don't see how saying, "this is a skin and shape modeled on the look of Angelina Jolie," infringes on her brand name, unless perhaps she decides to authorise an Angelina Jolie line of skins or you try to suggest your skins and shapes have her endorsement.

I am probably mistaken, but it does seem to me very tenuous.

As I recall, some years back, McDonalds tried to stop a Mr McDonald opening McDonald's fish and chip shop in his home town up in Scotland somewhere. After considering the matter, the courts decided he wasn't trying to make anyone think that his enterprise was in any way associated with the Golden Arches and there was little danger of anyone mistakenly thinking it was, and told the larger food concern to go away.

There ARE copyright laws that forbid using someone's likeness to sell things, but it hasn't really been policed in virtual worlds yet. It doesn't mean it's okay or legal. At least, not in America.

Once corporations catch on, a lot of things might be removed from the grid, so if I were making things I'd make fun of things slightly, since parody is legal. People who are selling 'Coke machines' and 'Angelina Jolie avatars' might lose their product some day.

McDonalds is famously litigious about its brand, and yet there is a near replica in SL. It's one way I know corporations do not even really know SL exists from a market standpoint.

"Trademark isn't the same copyright. And I really don't see how saying, "this is a skin and shape modeled on the look of Angelina Jolie," infringes on her brand name, unless perhaps she decides to authorise an Angelina Jolie line of skins or you try to suggest your skins and shapes have her endorsement."

I was merely pointing out that internationally a name must be trademarked to be protected and doesn't fall under copyright simply for existing. But if you were to take a derivative piece of work like an SL skin that looks like Angelina and advertise it as based on Angelina, thereby making the whole focus of your sale on her identity and name and make money from it....you may as well line up in front of a firing squad.

As for the definition of a derivative work, read it. It applies to deriving something from something else. The samples given are to give you an idea of what constitutes a derivative work, not to imply that those are the only cases acceptable. In conjunction with the use of a name and a likeness there is no room for doubt that this would be in contravention.

Your reference to McDonalds points out something very basic, Mr McDonald was in no way trying to infer that he was associated with Ray Croc's nightmare which has consumed the globe. He was simply trying to open a restaurant under his own name. The courts exercised common sense and declared the suit null and void and sent the corporate legal team packing. Common sense....now apply what your parents taught you about right and wrong, theft is a no-no, copying someone else's homework is a no-no, pretending to be someone else is a no-no. While certain copyright laws may not apply to any specific locale that you live in, rest assured that you can still be prosecuted in absentia or extradited if the right buttons are pushed, and judging from how close the U.S. and the UK are..I wouldn't push my luck.

It has to be derivative of something that's copyright in the first place. And -- while it may be different in other countries -- I am pretty sure that someone's physical appearance isn't copyright in the UK or under the Berne Convention.

You say that "the samples given are to give you an idea of what constitutes a derivative work." Where in http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2 do you say that Angelina Jolie's physical likeness would be covered?

The Diana Fund found this out the hard way, as I recall, when they tried -- unsuccessfully and at enormous expense -- to stop the Franklin Mint producing commemorative figurines of the late princess, arguing they had the exclusive rights to use and licence the use of her likeness for commercial purposes.

Think again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights



That was a legal licensing battle with different signed agreements and has nothing to do with unauthorized commercialism of celebrities and brand names in SL. Although I'm not all that familiar with it, I do recall there were other agreements held by both parties obtained from Diana's estate and both were arguing exclusivity.

addendum:

The data centers housing the Secondlife residents inventory reside in California and Texas both of which are heavily in favor of Right Of Publicity which pretty much covers any unauthorized commercialism of a celebrity or private person. Said persons can pursue legal recourse to have the data removed and obtain any information Linden Labs has on the transactions and personal information of the vendor as a matter of legal recourse.

Happy Reading
http://library.findlaw.com/1998/Feb/1/130405.html
California has since updated their Right Of Publicity laws to further protect people whose likeness or name is used.

Very simply, when you conduct commerce internationally via the world wide web you need to be aware of laws in your own country as well as others where the transactions are taking place. If you don't have the expressed permission from not only the celebrity AND the person who took the image you used to create your derivation which you earn money from, you are in violation of copyright laws. WIPO, The EU Copyright Org, Berne, and others all subscribe to these basic principles, and while each may not specifically cover right of publicity, local law usually does as outlined in the previous post.

If no profit was made on them, then yes possibly, but if you think they wouldn't care that someone is making money off them, then I have to disagree with you and so would their agents/managers/lawyers.

Off course you're absolutely right, but my point is that skins/shapes creators who use/copy someone's 'trademark' image/likeness/name/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, to make money off them, have no moral or ethical right to cry foul when someone copies their product. And i know that most skins and shapes creators will have at least one celebrity shape or skin in their range. Many have more.

Well firstly I haven't bought a celebrity skin or shape. I made my own shape and bought a non-celebrity skin. And i wasn't giving advice, just expressing an opinion. I refuse to buy a celebrity skin or shape because of that opinion, so at least I stand by my beliefs and opinions. And yes I'm tired of walking into a Skins store and being bombarded by pop-ups and public announcements asking me to dob in copiers/thieves when the store owner(s) are guilty of copying/stealing or at the very least selling goods that were created by copying/stealing someone's image.

Well in my hometown of Rosebud, Victoria, Australia, a restaurant called Macdonald's was ordered to change its name when McDonalds took it to court a couple of years ago, even though Macdonald's was a cafe that specialised in jumbo sized hamburgers. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2007/1927150.htm

/me nods.

Even dead celebs have agents.

Although I think it was awful they made dead Fred Astaire dance in a vacuum cleaner ad. :/



/me nods again.

I was gonna say too, so I'll just back you up instead. McD's is notoriously litigious, and has won a lot of similar cases. I think one was against a vegetarian restaurant. They've won cases that one even wonders what is that much like their brand name or logo. The judge who used common sense and said a man can use his own name, you can't patent a last name worldwide, was unfortunately rare.