Techdirt. Stories filed under "likeness"

Wilt Chamberlain's Family Tries To Block Film About His College Years, Claiming 'Publicity Rights'

Mike Masnick — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:22:31 PDT

A filmmaker is trying to make a film about basketball great Wilt Chamberlain's college years at Kansas. However, his estate appears to be threatening the filmmaker if he goes ahead, claiming such things as publicity rights over Chamberlain's image (thanks to Nancy for sending this over).

“Please be advised that on December 21, 2001, the court approved that the Chamberlain Family are entitled to ‘all of the rights, titles and interests into the intellectual property and rights of publicity associated with the international sports celebrity in the name and likeness of Wilton Norman Chamberlain.’

“Kevin, therefore, I request on behalf of my family, and as outlined in our above-mentioned letters, that you do not violate these rights by pursuing the name and likeness of Wilt since you do not have permission from our family.”

We've discussed many times just how frequently publicity rights are being abused to stop basic speech, and this appears like another such case. While publicity rights depend on the specifics of state laws, it is generally not considered a violation in any way to make a film about a public figure. That's why something like The Social Network was allowed, despite Mark Zuckerberg's obviously distaste for a movie highlighting the various legal claims against him and Facebook.

Publicity rights are supposed to be about preventing someone's image from being used to endorse a product -- such as putting their image on a cereal box. According to this document (pdf), Kansas doesn't have a publicity rights law (or didn't back in 2010). So, perhaps they're claiming that some other state's laws might apply. The family appears to live in Las Vegas, and Nevada does have a publicity rights law, which extends 50 years after death -- so perhaps that's what they're relying on. Many other states don't recognize such rights after death.

Either way, this seems silly and not at all a publicity rights issue. No one is going to assume that this movie is necessarily endorsed by Chamberlain or his family, just as they don't naturally assume any sort of biopic was obviously endorsed by those the film is about (or their families). Instead, this just seems like a clear case of someone trying to use the law to censor a filmmaker. Shameful.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Columnist Accuses EA Of 'Identity Theft' For Using Player Likenesses

Leigh Beadon — Wed, 7 Mar 2012 07:10:01 PST

Reader LCD points us to a piece in the New York Daily News that is so utterly stupid I don't want to spend much time on it—but it deserves (nay, requires) a brief pause for ridicule. According to the column by Andrea Tantaros, who almost exclusively covers politics and should probably stick to that, EA's use of football players' likenesses in video games (a topic we've covered before) is akin to identity theft:

Identity theft is a huge problem that affects millions of Americans each year. If a crook stole your most personal information and used it to make a buck, you'd be furious.

And, of course, that's illegal. But if you are a corporation, you can steal all the identities you want for profit.

That's what video game company Electronic Arts is doing when it deliberately exploits the likeness of the players it uses in popular video games. And it doesn't pay them a cent.

Uh-huh. Identify theft is about serious criminal fraud, not the violation of publicity rights that may or may not actually exist. To accuse EA of identity theft is hyperbole in the extreme, and makes it hard to take the remainder of the column seriously.

As for that remainder, it makes a little bit of effort to address the real issue, but Tantaros simply takes it for granted that everyone has some sort of innate human right to control any and all usages of their likeness. That's not at all the case, and while there is room for some reasonable debate on the merits of publicity rights, it isn't going to stem from frivolous accusations of identity theft.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Cypress Hill Backup Singer Sues Take Two For $250 Million; Says GTA Character Based On His Life

Mike Masnick — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:36:06 PST

Apparently, a backup singer from the group Cypress Hill, Michael "Shagg" Washington, is suing Rockstar Games and Take Two Interactive, claiming that he was the model for the main character in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and that they now owe him a cool 25% of the total revenue from the game (which would be $250 million of the $1 billion it supposedly made). He apparently met with the game designers and answered a bunch of questions about his life and they said thank you and never spoke to him again. He claims they promised to notify him if he was to be used in the game. His name is apparently listed in the credits under "talent," but that hardly seems like it's worth $250 million. He's claiming "fraud, misappropriation of likeness and copyright infringement." I haven't seen the actual complaint, but all three seem like pretty weak cases from what's been said. Perhaps there's a misappropriation of likeness issue if the guy really looks the same, but even that might be a stretch. I can't see how there's any copyright issue at all. Is he claiming copyright on his life story?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Jim Brown Appeals Case Over Whether Or Not EA Can Use His Likeness In A Video Game

Mike Masnick — Wed, 7 Jul 2010 18:30:00 PDT

Back in September last year, we wrote about an important district court ruling that said video game maker EA was within its rights to use a likeness of football player Jim Brown in its video games. In the past few decades, there has been a dangerous expansion in so-called "publicity rights," like this that effectively put serious limits on what others can do. This expansion needs to be challenged, even if it seems like something so simple as a video game. Not surprisingly, however, Brown is now appealing the district court's decision to dismiss the case, saying that he wasn't able to present all the facts. We noted last year that this case would certainly be appealed, so this doesn't come as a huge surprise. Still, it should be a case worth watching if you are concerned about the expansion of concepts like publicity rights (and, on the flip side, about free expression rights).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Says Video Games Can Use Sports Stars Likenesses

Mike Masnick — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:17:00 PDT

Earlier court rulings have found that sports leagues cannot stop videos games from using player stats, since that's factual information. But, what about player likenesses? Many had assumed that was still forbidden without a license, but a new court ruling has found otherwise. Former football player Jim Brown had sued EA, claiming the use of his likeness violated his rights, but a district court judge has dismissed the case, saying that video games are "expressive works, akin to an expressive painting that depicts celebrity athletes of past and present in a realistic sporting environment," and thus are protected by the First Amendment. The case will almost certainly be appealed, but for now, it's a big win for video game makers and their ability to use player likenesses in their games without licensing them first.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MLK Jr. Estate Threatening To Sue Vendors For Selling Products With Obama And King

Mike Masnick — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:32:00 PST

The family of Martin Luther King Jr. has unfortunately done plenty to tarnish the great man's legacy over the last few decades, specifically in being overly aggressive claiming "ownership" of anything having to do with King, and demanding money from various entities that show King's speeches. A decade ago they were involved in a big legal fight with CBS for showing King's I Have A Dream speech. Who knew that dream was locked up thanks to intellectual property laws?

Now the family is apparently threatening to sue anyone selling any kind of merchandise that includes images of King and President-Elect Obama, claiming that if others are making money off of King's image, King's family should get a cut: "We do feel that if somebody's out there making a dollar, we should make a dime." So, now, apparently that dream is to keep making money off a speech that was delivered decades ago.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story