Quote:
Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 7 2003, 08:07 AM
JR, can't you read? You can spot spelling mistakes, but you can't get the jist of simple "who owns an image"? Your in the content business, no? Wow.
I didn't say Fallwell gave him permission - someone takes a picture of Fallwell at a press conference. They sell the rights to that image to Hustler. Hustler parodies Fallwell with the image.
There is no copyright violation, they own an image taken with permission (press conference, as an example) for publication purposes.
HOWEVER, that image could not be used for commercial promotion (used to promote a product or service). Also, Hustler could not make Fallwell appear to say "I read hustler, and I love the juicy pussy pictures inside"... that would not be parody (although humorous) but would malign the character of Mr Fallwell. (one L or two? I dunno...).
Parody has to be done with great care so as to not create confusion which is actionable. Where that line is differs in all cases. However, that ain't the issue here.
The issue is copyright violation. I notice you didn't answer on the other thread regarding that fact.
Alex
|
as Serge pointed out there still seems to be a great deal of confusion on this issue.
are you sure your right? do you own an image just because you are in the pic? what about celebrities? do they own every pic taken of them? if i take a pic at a football game, do i need a release from 65,000 people before i can post it on a messageboard? what is "Fair use" - what role does parody play in all this? does the law address this? Jerry Falwells pic is not used for commercial promotion in that example and neither is yours. i really dont understand any of this.
please educate me about copyright law.