A lot of what you say is true. However, since the company made a game for profit and used the names and likenesses of famous people to promote and sell the game, they can complain that it violates their rights.
I don't know what a "natural right" is or what it might have to do with this or any court case.
The main weakness I see in this case is that the person who filed the case does not seem to be famous and I highly doubt anyone was trading his Twitter profile. If he was not being traded in the game, I doubt he'd have standing to sue. I wonder if anyone checked on this?
Right of publicity and privacy both limit any First Amendment rights. If a person puts their picture and name and other information onto Twitter, there is no right for a third party company to take those photos and other info and use it to make a for-profit game out of it. If you want to make a game where you make money using the name and photograph of Katy Perry -- that violates her right of publicity. Right of publicity has to do with trying to make money off the name and fame of famous people, without their consent. It would have made more sense, if legally possible, to file this lawsuit in California, which is where Twitter is located, which is where many celebrities are located or have lawyers, and which has a very robust Right of Publicity law, along with lawyers and judges who understand that law. There is no First Amendment right that I ever heard of to make a for-profit game using the names and likenesses of famous people without their permission.
I am a lawyer who works in Copyright. This article seems entirely misguided. Copyright has FAIR USE for education and for review and analysis. Therefore, if someone wants to research and read old news articles, and write about them and include at least portions of them, they are likely allowed to do so under FAIR USE. Other than that, if someone wants to reprint or republish, they need to get permission from the copyright owner. Many publications have archives online.
Could this same idea be applied to embeds of videos off youtube? "Everyone" embeds videos off youtube onto their blogs, myspace, or links to them on Facebook. Could this be considered copyright infringement?
MANY NEWS STATIONS have videos on youtube! WHat if those are embedded or linked on blogs, myspace, etc.
This whole thing opens up a can of worms. Seriously, though -- most blogs do not make any money and intimidating the writers is so morally and ethically wrong.
This is amazing. People far and wide email and blog news articles in full or in part.
The stupidest thing about suing a blogger is that 1) this blogger gave credit; and 2) the blogger was actually giving free publicity to the news source as well as to the writer.
Suing over this is so counterproductive.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by suebasko.
Re: Re: Right of Publicity
A lot of what you say is true. However, since the company made a game for profit and used the names and likenesses of famous people to promote and sell the game, they can complain that it violates their rights.
I don't know what a "natural right" is or what it might have to do with this or any court case.
The main weakness I see in this case is that the person who filed the case does not seem to be famous and I highly doubt anyone was trading his Twitter profile. If he was not being traded in the game, I doubt he'd have standing to sue. I wonder if anyone checked on this?
Right of Publicity
Right of publicity and privacy both limit any First Amendment rights. If a person puts their picture and name and other information onto Twitter, there is no right for a third party company to take those photos and other info and use it to make a for-profit game out of it. If you want to make a game where you make money using the name and photograph of Katy Perry -- that violates her right of publicity. Right of publicity has to do with trying to make money off the name and fame of famous people, without their consent. It would have made more sense, if legally possible, to file this lawsuit in California, which is where Twitter is located, which is where many celebrities are located or have lawyers, and which has a very robust Right of Publicity law, along with lawyers and judges who understand that law. There is no First Amendment right that I ever heard of to make a for-profit game using the names and likenesses of famous people without their permission.
FAIR USE exception for education, analysis and review
I am a lawyer who works in Copyright. This article seems entirely misguided. Copyright has FAIR USE for education and for review and analysis. Therefore, if someone wants to research and read old news articles, and write about them and include at least portions of them, they are likely allowed to do so under FAIR USE. Other than that, if someone wants to reprint or republish, they need to get permission from the copyright owner. Many publications have archives online.
COULD THIS APPLY TO EMBEDS OF VIDEOS ALSO?
OOOH I HAVE A REAL SERIOUS QUESTION HERE:
Could this same idea be applied to embeds of videos off youtube? "Everyone" embeds videos off youtube onto their blogs, myspace, or links to them on Facebook. Could this be considered copyright infringement?
MANY NEWS STATIONS have videos on youtube! WHat if those are embedded or linked on blogs, myspace, etc.
This whole thing opens up a can of worms. Seriously, though -- most blogs do not make any money and intimidating the writers is so morally and ethically wrong.
This is amazing.
This is amazing. People far and wide email and blog news articles in full or in part.
The stupidest thing about suing a blogger is that 1) this blogger gave credit; and 2) the blogger was actually giving free publicity to the news source as well as to the writer.
Suing over this is so counterproductive.