Copyright Question

I see so many artists around drawing portraits of famous people like Jack Sparrow from Pirates of The Caribbean and then selling them but if you did the same thing and made a game of the film it is in breach of copyright. How is this possible?

My question is that if you have drawn\painted a portrait yourself of somebody famous is it legal to sell it or are you asking for trouble?

Jason.

Two reasons spring to mind.
a) It's a derived work, and Mr. Sparrow (aka. Johnny Depp) don't mind other people making money off his likeness.
b) They're breaking the law.

It depends on whether they've been dead for x years (and thus the copyright for their likeness has expired). So yourself and Abraham Lincoln, okay - yourself and Angelina Jolie, not so much. That's why movies have that seemingly stupid disclaimer at the bottom stating the events and characters are fictional and any likeness of real people is "coincidental". They do this even for films that are "based on a true story".

This is an interesting question.

I mean, I could take a photo of some celebrity and sell it to a newspaper, who then publishes the image - all without the celebrity's approval.

Yes. But it's still copyright violation, and depending on where you're taking that picture, potentially a criminal offense too.

big10p said:
FlameDuck said:
I think you're confusing copyright with image rights, and in some countries image rights don't exist. In most countries you don't need permission to take someones picture, however, if image rights apply in your country making money from those pictures would be questionable.

In the USA you can certainly publish, without permission, a picture of a public figure such as a celebrity, politician or professional athlete.

Jack Sparrow may be different. He is a created character, like Mickey Mouse but alive.

For photos, there are usually exceptions for "persons of public interest", like politicians, actors, artists, musicians, the pope and everybody else who might fall in that category. However, those exceptions usually do not legalize bedroom videos shot with hidden cameras.

If you paint somebody in oil, that's probably another story again; I'd say that you need a proper authorization of your model to do that legally.

Everybody used to smile about natives that were afraid of being photographed; they believed the camera would steal their souls. Today's copyright laws are even sillier than that.

Well you're half right. The character Jack Sparrow (and his likeness) is definitely copyright protected. Additionally he is a likeness of Johnny Depp (and thus protected by publicity rights laws like the Californian Celebrity Rights Act).

So in fact you could say they're breaking 2 laws. The right for Disney to control Jack Sparrow, and the right of Johnny Depp to control his likeness.

Not in California, possibly in other states as well.

Just dont paint Mohamed.. if you do you gona die fast.

Don't forget his likeness to Keith Richards, too! :D

> How is this possible?

It's under the radar for just drawing pictures. Although if they wanted to the owner of the image rights could go after all the artists. (especially for a fictional character)

For unlicensed movies, the size of the violation brings an instant need to stop it, or the original rights holder gives up the right to stop any future movies as well.

Except in reality, where anyone has yet to die. While we're at it, don't paint Jesus or God either. You'll break the (usually) second commandment (idolization).

Painting an image doesn't mean 'idolization' in any way, shape or form unless I suppose you're member of the oppressive Pharisee class who extract the sweetest pleasure from burdening people with their slimy bull and authoritism.

Also, I bet there are thousands of people who have died for drawing or painting Mohammed, or accidentally burping his name, or standing on a crack in the pavement that vaguely spelt his name.


A quick Google search brought this up. I don't know if this is true - but it sounds completely believable from my own experience.

http://patdollard.com/2007/10/06/10-christians-slaughtered-over-mohammed-cartoon/

It's not my fault you don't know the second commandment. Let me refresh your memory. "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." (Exodus 20:4). Why is this? Because fundamentally Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic religions, based on the exact same superstitions.

You were killed by militant Muslims? Where are you posting from?

Besides I wouldn't consider a site that sells "Jihadikiller" T-Shirts, and operated by a right-wing evangelical Christian, as being particularly objective. But my immediate question is, how do they know the people killed were Christians? The next question of course is why wasn't this story reported by a reliable news source (and no, Compact Direct News is not reliable).

On the celibirty pic thing: You don't need to ask them. They would need to come all to you and ask you not to publish it. If only a single person would come, all you have to do is make sure he/she can not be recognized.

You only need explizit rights to do it if you photograph a single person or very small group.

oh.....crap?! did someone mention religion on an internet forum.......

(runs for cover)

Please keep this on topic!!

I think the only real answer to this is not to ask questions about legallity on a public forum. Laws can be different from country to country, so advice from posters may not be relivant to you, and the internet itself seems to breed disinformation, as posters rarely have to justify their claims. If you truely are worried about this then seeking professional advice is the only way to go.

It is an odd law,

I had a girlfriend few years back who was almost doppelganger close to winona rider in likeness. If i had drawn/photo a portrait of her or put her in a game, how could someone sue me as i could prove/argue my inspiration came from her not from winni herself. I think as long as you draw it yourself (not use a copyrighted image/photo) and do not reference it to any characters, movies, or mention the actors name then i dont see how they can actually prove its supposed to be them.

Hmmm good point. I never really thought about it like that.

Thanks to everyone who gave advice, it was most appreciated :)

Jason.

>I had a girlfriend few years back who was almost doppelganger close to winona rider in likeness.

Some guys get all the luck. 8o)

Yawn! Flameduck: 10 commandents for Jews and a promised messiah through a bloodline that needed protecting during extremely precarious times. Maybe read your bible before you wax 'smarty'. Nowhere are the ten commandments meant to burden gentiles, though I can't see a problem with them as a guideline unless of course people like you and perhaps the majority of churches wish to take them completely out of context and burden ignorant people with them. This is why it's so important every individual read the bible themselves in order to know when you're being loaded with pap. The crap I was told in Catholic school!

My experience is drawn from my own experiences of 'enrichment' in the UK. Do I have to die to know about it? In your blinkered view probably yes, and as everybody on this forum and perhaps every other person you deem fit to shine upon knows: you're simply right about everything. And so I must humbly bow to your superiority. Why it's almost as if you're... well - god-like, for want of a better description.

So what if it's a bit of fanatical site? As I said a quick search turned it up and it sounds completely believable - or haven't you seen people having their heads hack-sawed off? You'd probably short-circuit straight into denial and 'rationalization' if you did...but haven't a few people in your own home-country found themselves on the razor-sharp end of 'enrichment' or did the nasty 'hate criminals' throw themselves violently onto the blades of some innocent Muslim cherubs? Just wondering.

> "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any
> likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth
> beneath or in the water under the earth."

Mine reads as follows. Quite a difference.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."

I have reason to believe the second one is the correct english translation. (since the important point was not to make an idol)

If you make a game with a character that resembles Jack Sparrow (Although you don't name him in this way) it's OK, unless you suddently start making a substancial bit of money. Then even if he doesn't look alike you'll be sued, It's all about money. Who will win? Well it mainly depends on who can afford the best lawyers.

> it's OK, unless you suddently start making a substancial bit of money

Making money has nothing to do with it. You can give the game away for free, if the owner's of Jack Sparrow decide to sue they have a case. They may not win if the game only has a character that looks like Jack, but if the character is also a pirate, with a ship called the Black pearl, then they probably will.

I think MadMax was suggesting that they'll sue on the most tenuous of grounds if you're making money. Not that they won't sue on good grounds if you're not.

I have a question relating to this:

HYPOTHETICALY
Say I were to create a game, a lego star wars game, noncommercial, but to distribute it freely. If I were to NOT use the word "Star Wars", and NOT use the word "Lego", but have starwarzy aspects like the force and lightsabers, and have the characters appear to be legos but have different proportions, but still look like legos. Would this be illegal?

Yes.

k, though so

Quite possibly.

Keep in mind that in addition to the images themselves that may be copyrighted, I'm pretty sure that the terms "lightsaber" and "the force" are trademarked as well.

You might be OK if your "modular man" has a "glow sword", but if you call it a lego guy with a light saber they can take you to the cleaners.

On top of that, keep in mind that even 'confusingly similar' words are protected -- so calling it 'leggo' or 'mego' or something is still a grey area where they have a good chance to win if the trademark owners decide to make an example out of you.

Finally: There are exceptions to those rules for things like satire where you're making fun of something (which is why many of the TV skits making fun of a movie or something aren't getting into trouble) -- but the satire definition is hard to stretch to a full-length production (movie, game, or otherwise)

Good point on satire. Mel Brooks got an OK from George Lucas before making Spaceballs as an example. Altough he probably would have won a lawsuit in the end, it still would have cost a fortune to defend himself.

Lol, I was about to mention spaceballs, u beat me 2 it!


Indeed, so much for the law being fair :/ I think for all court cases the lawyers names (who specialise in the kind of law required) should be 'picked out of a hat' a few months before the trial *:)

That's just make it even *more* like 'jackpot justice', if you can't pick your own defense attorney.

basicly you have to check the legal situation in your country. Most nations use a number of laws for various kinds of intellectual property, from machine patents, music, software to patents on genes. You probaby best setup a little company in russia, then produce it from there. The US laws are somewhat picky.

Agreed, but it would certainly knock the money = licence-to-bend-the-rules system on its ass and make it more equal for everyone. I think you should still be allowed to dismiss and get another if you dont like what you get. I mean think about it, if i were to take a corporation to court where the right/wrong situation was a grey area. How could my £30-£100 an hour solicitor possibly hope to compete against an army of super-trained highly paid, silk wearing lawyers?
In a situation like this, "jackpot justice" seems more appealing if you ask me :)

It wouldnt work of course as lawyers still need to charge their 'worth' like any buisness. Prehaps a better system would be that any party could only have an equally sized legal team prehaps (hard to enforce outside court tho :).

He can't. That's the whole point of the law. Protecting property. Why do you think rape is illegal? Because it's traumatizing to women? No, because women were once property, and the value of said property were diminish by the act of rape (because a virgin was worth more).

An even better one would be "stop breaking the law". :o>