This means that the celebrities who sue do not have to show that their reputations were actually harmed just to get past the initial phases of a lawsuit against Mr. And, slander per se is actionable without proof of special damage ( Gonzalez v. Given the image itself, it may seem obvious that such a cause of action would be appropriate. West created is associated with them, and is depicting them in an unchaste act. The celebrities here will have to simply show that the image Mr. This is because slander is defined in the California Civil Code as a “false and unprivileged publication…by radio or any mechanical or other means which" among other things “imputes someone to a want of chastity.or hich, by natural consequence, causes actual damage" (Cal. West for defamation under a slander per se theory. Given that these wax figurines seem to be custom made, and the damages for copyright infringement are limited here, this cause of action seems unlikely.īecause of the sexual nature of the depiction, the celebrities may sue Mr. the photograph’s value itself, not the reputation of the celebrity in question). The damages would be limited to the damage to the original image (i.e. Swift owned the copyright to that photograph or film, she may bring an action for copyright infringement. Thus, if a photographer, film artist, or someone created an image of, say, Taylor Swift, and Ms. Rather, the lawsuit would be over Kanye’s depiction of these figures as a “derivative work.” In other words, if Kanye, or the wax sculptor under his direction, used an existing photograph, video, or other image to create the derivative work – the sleeping wax figures, the owner of that copyright may have a colorable lawsuit against Mr. Thus, the use of a celebrity’s image in itself would not make Mr. §102: and include (1) literary works (2) musical works, including any accompanying words (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music (4) pantomimes and choreographic works (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works (7) sound recordings and (8) architectural works. Works of authorship that are entitled copyright protection are specifically enumerated in 17 U.S.C. Celebrity’s faces, in and of themselves, are not a work of authorship and therefore not entitled to copyright protection.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |