SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: CFA who wrote (4860)7/2/2003 10:16:03 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Respond to of 12465
 
Egotard, I think with multi-personality playing cards you can make an argument that the cards themselves, since they are "regulation", are what you are selling and the pictures are a humorous parody. If the cards were, for example, different poses of Martha Stewart, I would think that would be different because then you could make a case that she was the main attraction. However, I would also think the more satirical you were, the less case could be made you were capitalizing on the "good name" of Martha Stewart, and thus the less chance you'd be in violation of any right of publicity laws.

I would think the same argument above, for the most part, could be made with a t-shirt since, again, a case could be made the shirt itself was the main attraction. Again, the more the focus is on a single person's likeness, the more in danger you are of violating someone's right of publicity. Once you get to a the level of a painting, it's hard to make an argument you are buying it for the frame or the nice color scheme. As we saw with the recent Tiger Woods case, the artist was able to claim he was honoring various winners of the Masters. Had the piece just been a tribute to Tiger Woods, I would think the court would have ruled differently.

If any of the images used were copyrighted, that's a whole other ball of wax.

Usual disclaimer: I'm not an attorney so treat everything above as sheer speculation.

- Jeff



To: CFA who wrote (4860)7/2/2003 10:23:38 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!  Respond to of 12465
 
egotard,

That's a tough call.

The deck of cards is an obvious parody.

The photographs/artwork themselves may be a violation of some other person's work, as you pointed out.

The individuals depicted are all well known public personas.

I'd wager that the deck of cards is fair use of likeness. But that doesn't mean that one or more of the individuals depicted on the cards couldn't sue. They may not win, but they could certainly sue.

KJC