watermelon Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Not a lawyer, not american and havn't analysised it... But the gist is scary. Guess I won't be returning to America any time again. Be nice if someone could confirm what I think it says... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4844570.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stefan_g Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 It might put an end to filmmaking in Connecticut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I'm sorry but what does a non-commercial art endeavour like street photography have anything to do with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdkirk Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 There is a large step between this and an "end to street photography." Notice that this kind of law has already been passed by nearly half of all the US states and the world has not come to an end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I suspect, as Eric pointed out, that in the end it's about <i>use</I>. Still, it would be interesting to hear Bert's view. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross_wilson1 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 An actors image is legally their intellectual property and thus is protected by copyright laws anyway, this is the angle the MPAA is coming at them with. What Newman is proposing, I think, sounds like they're trying to make the issue clear cut after death i.e. ruling out the chance someone like Starbucks will want a commercial made from bits of James Stuart's scenes in it. The studios who own his movies sell that footage to the production company (for a lot) making the commercial and technically James Stuarts estate gets little or nothing and to add to that James Stuart is now associated with Starbucks. Newman is trying to protect an actors integrity after death, the MPAA is trying to protect their money bags. As Eric states however, it's not a concern for artistic endeavour for the same reason you can shoot a movie with a Coke can in it and you don't get sued by Coke. A little alarmist on your part Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basscheffers Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I guess Paul Newman doesn't want <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4836286.stm">this<a> to happen to him! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_hall1 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Copyright law is federal law while this issue is proposed state law. And there are actors living in this particular state... Now copyright law does not allow unauthorized derivative works of a copyrighted work. The actors say that images and characteristics may be pulled out of one work and used in another. If that were done well it would be difficult to prove however there would be a body of work without explanation. And actors or their heirs or their trusts have the resources to bring difficult issues into civil courts...not to mention the resources of movie studios. And application of law recognizes a fundamental of a public person. In other words someone who often seeks public adulation can't then demand protection from public adulation...when in public...when not in danger. The proposed law gives a public person right to their image when for commercial use...(but for a period of time greater than copyright of existing works...such that the loss of the work copyright transfers image rights to the public person in the work). (The private person already has right to their image because the private person can demand protection from disruptions of a public adulation they never sought.) But if commercial use includes photographer sale of the image or includes publisher use of the image then this could be a paparazzi law...because the actors are concerned with state law in the state in which they live. And a law that prevents images from a fifty year old movie (if out of copyright) from being used in a current commercial (or in a poster) would not be effective as state law but would need to be federal law ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watermelon Posted March 26, 2006 Author Share Posted March 26, 2006 Well if you dont act alarmist you get boring replies don't you! :) So its okay if your images make it into a gallery, but then to publicise your exebition the gallery run a serries of billboards with one of your street scene images. What happens then? Thats you using the images as art in the gallery, but the gallery using them commercialy to advertise their service (you). Sounds all very tricky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 The sky is falling....the sky is falling. (look up) Oh, no it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross_wilson1 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I imagine that most gallery owners have contracts that stipulate what can and can't be done with the art you're submitting to the gallery. If that was not the case, you could see it as the gallery selling itself using the image you submitted to the gallery, which, I think would be fair. It's not like the gallery is selling your photo, they're using it to promote itself and thus you. I think you could try and claim damages though, if you believed that it is some kind of insult to your art, being that it's on a billboard. I'm guessing it would then come down to how much you had to spend on a lawyer. God bless the land of the free* (*terms and conditions apply). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Look up the difference between commercial and editorial use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bert_krages1 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 As far as I can tell, the proposed legislation would make a person's "right to publicity" an inheritable property right. This is already the case in California. It had nothing to do with copyright law but instead affects the common law right of person's not to have their likenesses used without permission in advertisements and on products such as coffee cups. It will not affect the right to take photographs in public places, much less result in the end of street photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 <I>who is Paul Newman</I><P> Some guy that made money in <a href="http://francedenbas.free.fr/distributeurs/Images/newmans_natural_imageg.jpg">popcorn</a> and <a href="http://blog.yam.com/bonlavie/9a48edb6.jpg">salad dressing</a>. You are thinking of Alfred E Newman. No relation. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Pete, he also acted in a couple decent b & w movies, but <a href=http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.markreubengallery.com/bs_ent_men/lge/0950ab.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.markreubengallery.com/bs_ent_men/0950ab.html&h=314&w=450&sz=34&tbnid=5O-YzlcMt76fkM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=124&hl=en&start=14&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthe%2Bhustler%2Bnewman%2Bphoto%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN>nothing special</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Incidentally, if you've never seen the 1961 movie "The Hustler," you should. It's a great movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdkirk Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 >>The proposed law gives a public person right to their image when for commercial use...(but for a period of time greater than copyright of existing works...such that the loss of the work copyright transfers image rights to the public person in the work). (The private person already has right to their image because the private person can demand protection from disruptions of a public adulation they never sought.) But if commercial use includes photographer sale of the image or includes publisher use of the image then this could be a paparazzi law...because the actors are concerned with state law in the state in which they live. And a law that prevents images from a fifty year old movie (if out of copyright) from being used in a current commercial (or in a poster) would not be effective as state law but would need to be federal law ?<< A bit more than just scenes or images from a past movie. It would also include the "virtualization" of the actor using CGI to create an entirely different thing than the actor has ever done (or would do). We can today take a few cine examples of John Wayne and create an entirely new John Wayne movie ("Releasing in May, 2007--Breakback Mountain II...John Wayne and Roy Rogers as you've never seen them before!)...that is certainly something these laws are intended to prevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 "Growing anti-Americanism" - Just My imagination?? British Prime Minister Tony Blair has sought to dispel views that he is an unquestioning ally of the United States and condemned growing anti-Americanism as a hindrance to closer global ties. Blair, who has faced domestic criticism for his support for the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, told a rare joint sitting of the Australian parliament in Canberra that isolating the United States on the world stage was "madness". Solving the world's problems needed an "active foreign policy of engagement, not isolation" between countries, the British Labour Party leader told lawmakers, and Washington needed to be on board as much as possible. But he pointed out: "This alliance does not end with, but it does begin with America. For us in Europe and for you, this alliance is central. And I want to speak plainly here. I do not always agree with the US. "Sometimes they can be difficult friends to have. But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in. This is getting old, Email me if you want to ream my ass! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 ooops ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmdelux Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 personally, who cares what Newman says? He is nobody as far as I'm concerned and a mediocre actor to boot. The problem w/ actors is that think they know everything since it is rare for them to be asked hard questions. Ask them a truly challenging question and the publicist will make sure you never talk to them again. Similar to athletes, actors contribute virtually nothing to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 << ... actors contribute virtually nothing to society ... >> Too broad a statement for my taste. And in Newman's case, it's just flat-out mistaken. Newman personally contributes all the Newman's Own profits that flow to him to charity. According to the website, "... ince the inception of the company ... the total amount of those gifts to charity has been approximately $175 million." Forget his acting, about which we can differ. I'd be glad to have more citizens like him, thousands more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Paul Angulo - <I>personally, who cares what Newman says? ...Similar to athletes, actors contribute virtually nothing to society.</I><BR> begs the question: what are you contributing to society Mr. Angulo beyond your envious and poisonous categorical condemnations? <BR> This entire thread is a low point for the forum. I request moderator intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger krueger Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 <i>....So its okay if your images make it into a gallery, but then to publicise your exebition the gallery run a serries of billboards with one of your street scene images. <br><br> What happens then? Thats you using the images as art in the gallery, but the gallery using them commercialy to advertise their service (you). Sounds all very tricky!</i> <br><br> This is considered incidental use--if you have a permissible unreleased use of an image, the courts have generally permitted you to use the SAME image in advertising to promote itself and the book/gallery/magazine etc. it appears in. Mags like Sports Illustrated do this all the time, in fact one of the precedents in this area is their victory over Joe Namath in '75/'76. But this is something that's 100% case law, not statute, so you'd definitely want to do your homework before climbing out on this particular limb. <br><br> <i>An actors image is legally their intellectual property and thus is protected by copyright laws anyway</i><br><br> Copyright does no such thing, it only protects created works. (Hmm, Tori Spelling's plastic surgeon might have a claim...). <br><br> Generally issues like this fall under under "Misappropriation" or "Right of Publicity", concepts that are in some states codified as statute, other places merely long-recognized common-law rights. Nowhere that these rights are mere common law are they understood to extend beyond death. California (understandably given the amount of Hollywood money in our political system) was a pioneer in extending these rights 70 years beyond death. <br><br> But I don't think it's a huge leap to see misappropriation/right-of-publicity being used against street photographers. That's exactly what happened in diCorcia. Yeah, he won, but I'm sure that win cost him a fortune, and that still leaves 49 states with little or no case law regarding street photography sold as art. Mostly, street photographers don't make enough money at it to be worth suing. diCorcia makes money hand over fist, it seems inevitable that there'd be an aggrieved subject looking for "their cut" sooner or later. <br><br> In any event, the content of the state misappropriation/right-of-publicity statute mostly doesn't matter to street photographers, most of them, plainly read, cause a clear problem with selling unreleased street, The important idea is that 1st Amendment freedom of expression can be found to trump state law, exactly what happened in New York with diCorcia, and I believe also what happened when Tiger Woods failed in the Sixth Circuit to stop the guy selling paintings of him. <br><br> But the California courts weren't nearly so generous to Gary Saderup, they not only found his charcoal drawings of the Three Stooges to be insufficiently transformative to gain protection, they also discussed the Tiger Woods case in the decision, and implied that they would have decided that case differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger krueger Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Oh, and the thing Newman et al are afraid of, the patching together of bits of an existing performance to create a new one? <br><br> Already happening. <br><br> South Park used it to put Chef in one more episode (to portray him as a pedophile then kill him off) after Isaac Hayes left in a huff about Scientology. <br><br> from: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4836286.stm">BBC article on South Park</a> <br><br> <i>"Hayes did not participate in the episode but his lines were apparently patched together from previous recordings." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 << ... actors contribute virtually nothing to society ... >> I just love the conjecture here sometimes. http://www.mtv.com/thinkmtv/features/global/diary/angelina_jolie/ I recommend clicking on the "MTV Overdrive" link and watching the doc. plug in charity after any actors name in google... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4749775.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now