Legal question re:profit from celeb likeness (1 Viewer)

[Ninjerk]

I noticed a number of celebrity paintings featured by a coffee shop where I live (http://www.mitchellscoffee.com/) including Audrey Hepburn, Liz Taylor, and members of the Rat Pack (plus a couple others, I think). The artist's name is Jordan Weiland (http://jordanweiland.com/). There were no prices listed in the coffee shop, but on the Store listed on her website (http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5868937) she is selling a number of them.

Could she be subject to legal recourse by those celebrities' estates? I seem to remember there being some hub bub over a company using Frank Sinatra's silhouette and being sued by the estate. Furthermore, is she in some manner of ethical jeopardy for using another artist's work (the photographer)? One of my friends said her pictures look like they were designed by digitally manipulating the images in a program, such as Photoshop.

 

[bospress.net]

I would think that there is always a chance that the artist could get sued and could lose. Celebrities own the rights to thier image, but only so much. If they owned it completely, then Paparazzi could not sell photos of them, as they would own the rights to their likeness.

I'm sure that someone here knows more about this than I do. I know that they need your permission to show your face on "Cheaters" or "Cops", as a nobody, but as a celebrity, they would not need that permission. It may have something to do with them putting themselves in the public spotlight.

Bill

 

[mjp]

An artist can paint anyone they'd like. Rights to likenesses don't (generally) apply to unique artworks.

But there is an interesting lawsuit going on right now with Shepard Fairey who created the Obama "HOPE" posters. He based the image on a UP photo, and now UP wants a cut of the $$$ the posters made.

Fairey is arguing "fair use," and would probably win on that alone. But now he's filed a countersuit against the AP asking for a declaration or something from the AP stating that it is fair use and they won't sue him or anyone who owns the poster. It will be interesting to see the outcome, but I don't think the AP has a chance in hell of winning this.

 

[homeless mind]

I noticed a number of celebrity paintings featured by a coffee shop where I live (snip).

(1.) Could she be subject to legal recourse by those celebrities' estates? I seem to remember there being some hub bub over a company using Frank Sinatra's silhouette and being sued by the estate. (2.) Furthermore, is she in some manner of ethical jeopardy for using another artist's work (the photographer)? One of my friends said her pictures look like they were designed by digitally manipulating the images in a program, such as Photoshop.

You asked two questions.

But first, let me say mjp is correct. An artist can paint anyone he or she likes. Fair game. And I haven't been to the sites listed by Ninjerk, as I'm not that interested in a photograph turned into "art" (har har), because someone spent five minutes or five hours on it in photoshop "” specifically a celeb. That sounds like a junior high school project. (I've shown seventh graders how to do that, and many already used photoshop, so as far as art goes, hmmm...but what is art, anyway?)

1. Legal Recourse? Yes. Remember, you can indict a loaf of bread. But she may be protected by the first amendment and/or under the Lanham Act, see http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/. (< Boring as all hell.) It boils down to trademark infringement. I am not an attorney, and if there is one here, he or she can probably site cases, too. (They've been sited to me for my work.) It varies a great deal, and also, state by state.

Any artist who does celebs (bigger venues than a coffee house) has good IP attorneys. Or at least should. I do.

2. Ethical Jeopardy? Again, I haven't seen her work. But if she is taking someone else's property (the photographer who owns the rights) that seems pretty self-explanatory (depending upon one's ethics "” or proper legal use). However, there is the question of public domain...as I've seen paintings (interpretations, expressions) of photographs, perfectly legal. Again, lawyers have the answers or opinions necessary, case by case.

And it gets expensive, these answers, opinions, trust me...as Nixon once said...

Hope this helps.

Pax

This is fun, not art...IMO "” but I do dig my dog, "Chocolate." Trippin...