# is it legal to print and sell t-shirt with celebrity faces on them?



## logikz779

I'm planning to screen print a few sweatshirts which include celebrity faces on them. Is that legal or does it need some kind of authorisation? I've seen them being sold at market stalls and I cant imagine them going through any legal processes. Cheers

Any help is appreciated


----------



## PositiveDave

Search the forum, there are a zillion threads which all say 'No, it isn't legal'.
'I saw it on a market stall' is not considered a legal defence except in a Shanghai bar.
There are trademarks, copyright and personal rights to your likeness.
Any celeb t-shirt breaks at least 2 out of 3.


----------



## kimura-mma

logikz779 said:


> I'm planning to screen print a few sweatshirts which include celebrity faces on them.


There are a lot of legalities involved. You should consult with an intellectual property attorney before proceeding.



logikz779 said:


> Is that legal or does it need some kind of authorisation?


It is illegal unless you are licensed by the appropriate IP owners.

All photos (regardless of what the image is of) are copyrighted by the photographer. So to use a photo that you didn't take requires license or permission for the copyright owner.

All people (regardless if they are famous or not) have Right of Publicity, which grants them the exclusive right to profit off their own name and likeness. So to use someone's name and likeness requires license or permission from the person (or estate if they are deceased). One common exception to this is the use of political figures. While they are technically allowed to sue for violation of publicity rights, they generally do not for concerns of damaging their reputation.

And in some cases, using celebrities without permission could also infringe upon existing registered trademarks.



logikz779 said:


> I've seen them being sold at market stalls


Some of it is probably legal, some of it is probably illegal.



logikz779 said:


> and I cant imagine them going through any legal processes.


Out of curiosity, why do you think this way?


----------



## logikz779

Cheers Tim, alot of helpful information there. I think that way because of the price it's being sold for, seems like it wouldn't be worth paying for any authorisation. Also alot of illegal goods can be sold in a market without being discovered right away, so I just thought it was unlikely that they would bother going through any legal processes.


----------



## kimura-mma

Yeah, if they are designing the shirts themselves, then there's a decent chance they are illegal. Because licensing can be expensive and difficult to get.

But often times those products are actually purchased through licensed wholesale distributors. It's possible to purchase screen printed shirts or even purchase heat transfers that can be applied to shirts. So while it sometimes seems unlikely, it is possible they could be legal. Because purchasing through licensed distributors is not expensive or difficult.


----------



## Vector Girl

If you photograph or illustrate a celeb and they're in the public domain, I don't see why you couldn't use that on a shirt design.

Politicians are fair game, why not other famous people?

Am I wrong?


----------



## IYFGraphics

Vector Girl said:


> If you photograph or illustrate a celeb and they're in the public domain, I don't see why you couldn't use that on a shirt design.
> 
> Politicians are fair game, why not other famous people?
> 
> Am I wrong?


I think Tim answered your question here.



> All people (regardless if they are famous or not) have Right of Publicity, which grants them the exclusive right to profit off their own name and likeness. So to use someone's name and likeness requires license or permission from the person (or estate if they are deceased). One common exception to this is the use of political figures. While they are technically allowed to sue for violation of publicity rights, they generally do not for concerns of damaging their reputation.


Actually I asked this question awhile back that if I as a photographer took a picture of a famous person (I own the pic since I took it) then can I as a printer use my own photo on a shirt and sell it....the answer was NO.

Hope this helps.


----------



## kimura-mma

Vector Girl said:


> If you photograph or illustrate a celeb and they're in the public domain, I don't see why you couldn't use that on a shirt design.


"Public domain" does not refer to public figures, it refers to *works* that are not covered by intellectual property rights.

While copyrights or trademarks could be released into public domain for a variety of reasons, it is very rare for a person to release their own name and likeness (keep in mind, right of publicity is not intellectual property gained by creating or selling something or registering with a federal authority, it is legal right given to all people). In fact, it is more common for a celebrity to *increase* the value of their image by licensing it, not *decreasing* the value by releasing it to public domain.

For images that are in the public domain, it just means that the copyright of the image has been released so that others are allowed to use it for any purpose. But that does *not* grant any license to use any intellectual property that is within the content of the image. For instance, if I take a pic of Derek Jeter and release it into the public domain, that does not mean someone can make Derek Jeter t-shirts. His right of publicity still applies and the legalities of Major League Baseball trademarks, copyrights and merchandise licenses still apply.



Vector Girl said:


> Politicians are fair game, why not other famous people?


Politicians are *not* fair game. They still have right of publicity just like anyone else. They just *choose* to not pursue legal action when their rights are violated. But they in no way officially waive their legal rights.


----------



## logikz779

Would it make any difference if the image was modified?


----------



## kimura-mma

logikz779 said:


> Would it make any difference if the image was modified?


From a copyright perspective, there are laws regarding derivative works, parody and fair use. None of which actually makes using copyrighted images legal, but they offer you a legal defense if you are sued for infringement.

From a right of publicity perspective, you would have to make the celebrity unidentifiable to make it legal. Which would, of course, defeat the purpose of using their image. If someone can tell who the person is, then it is illegal regardless of whether the original image is modified or not.


----------



## PositiveDave

This question gets done to death three times a week, the answer's short & simple.


----------



## kimura-mma

PositiveDave said:


> This question gets done to death three times a week


Very true. But I'm a sucker for it every time.



PositiveDave said:


> the answer's short & simple.


The answer may be a short & simple "no," but I like to give some reasoning and information behind the answer. Personally, I think that's what this forum is all about.


----------



## IYFGraphics

kimura-mma said:


> Very true. But I'm a sucker for it every time.
> The answer may be a short & simple "no," but I like to give some reasoning and information behind the answer. Personally, I think that's what this forum is all about.


Dave & Tim

I agree the topic is brought up several times a week but if I understand Rodney's philosophy on TSF he would rather the question(s) is answered rather than just telling someone to use the search and your questions will be answered.

It would be different if it was the same person asking the same question over and over but it's not, and a lot of people have trouble using the search function of the board for some reason. 

I'm still learning all the ins and outs of IP and thanks to these posts myself and others are becoming "well educated" on the subject, and yes while the answer is almost always a resounding NO, it still needs to be said. I'm very thankful to have knowledgeable people here on TSF like you guys it does make a difference in the quality of the info even if it is redundant sometimes.

JMHO


----------



## PositiveDave

I got bored of answering the same question about exposure time so I wrote and posted an article here, then you can just refer the questioner to it. Perhaps Tim would like to take it on?


----------



## IYFGraphics

PositiveDave said:


> I got bored of answering the same question about exposure time so I wrote and posted an article here, then you can just refer the questioner to it. Perhaps Tim would like to take it on?


David.....I think that's a excellent idea, even if it's just a quick reference that could be linked to along with a reply to the OP...since there are so many questions maybe Rodney would even make it a featured topic.

That's two votes Tim....LOL!


----------



## kimura-mma

I would be happy to post an article. I'd like to get Rodney's ok first. While I have experience with this topic, I'm not an attorney and don't want anything taken as official legal advice.


----------



## PositiveDave

We just need to cut and paste Solmu's 'Some are doing it and get caught...' speech plus a few links to other posts


----------



## Vector Girl

PositiveDave said:


> I got bored of answering the same question about exposure time so I wrote and posted an article here, then you can just refer the questioner to it. Perhaps Tim would like to take it on?


Thanks, Dave. I would love to read your exogesis on using celebrity likenesses. 

But if your so bored and annoyed with those starting out, perhaps you should confine yourself to conversations with other adults.

btw, when Shepard Fairey goes to court in March, it could change things as far as "fair use" goes ... It's not like this issue is set in concrete.


----------



## Vector Girl

Thanks, Dave. I would love to read your exegesis on using celebrity likenesses. 

But if your so bored and annoyed with those starting out, perhaps you should confine yourself to conversations with other adults.

btw, when Shepard Fairey goes to court in March, it could change things as far as "fair use" goes ... It's not like this issue is set in concrete.


----------



## PositiveDave

Nothing is in stone until the judge gives his verdict, meanwhile I can do no better than to quote Solmu:
_

Some do whatever they want and wait for the cease and desist letter (and hope the company doesn't skip over it)
Some can afford lawyers to defend on the basis of parody, etc.
Some are in the process of getting sued and losing
Some are in the process of getting sued and winning
Some are just lucky and not getting caught
Some are just lucky and not getting caught... yet
Some will plan to settle out of court
Some are ignorant of the law and don't realise the world of hurt that is coming
Some are carefully staying on the right side of the legal divide
Some are carefully staying on the right side of the legal divide, but will be sued anyway, and unable to afford an adequate legal defense even though what they were doing was theoretically legal.
_


----------



## IYFGraphics

Vector Girl said:


> btw, when Shepard Fairey goes to court in March, it could change things as far as "fair use" goes ... It's not like this issue is set in concrete.


I doubt that the Fairey case is going to have much effect on IP laws as they pertain to garment decorating.



> In today’s hearing, the judge also said that the AP’s lawyers could depose Fairey once more. The dispute primarily rests on whether Fairey was allowed to use the photo for his art under the Fair Use Doctrine, which the U.S. Copyright Office says allows for the reproduction of a particular work if it’s used as for the purposes of “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”
> 
> 
> 
> Money is also central to the case. The AP claims that Fairey made at least $4 million from products and reproductions of his Obama poster. Fairey’s attorney denied the artist had earned “millions,” though the AP story said Stewart’s argument rested on the fact that the proceeds had been given to charities and that financial penalties would likely bankrupt the artist.


Full article can be found here...Judge In AP-Shepard Fairey Fair Use Suit Suggests Settlement | paidContent


I don't think any of the "fair use" (“criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”) pertain to any of us using someone else's IP, decorating a garment and selling it.


But it is JMHO.


----------



## Vector Girl

From the L.A. Times on June 1, 2010

"Geoffrey Stewart, who represents Fairey in the case, disputes the implications in the AP story.
"We don't believe Judge Hellerstein's statement in court today indicates a prejudgment of the case," said Stewart in a statement that was e-mailed to The Times.
"We continue to believe there is a strong basis for fair use in this case, and Judge Hellerstein made clear that he hasn't even begun to focus on the fair use issues." 


From the L.A. Times Aug 21, 2010


"Earlier this month, a judge denied AP's request for sanctions against Fairey related to the case. There have been rumors circulating that AP and Fairey will settle out of court, but neither side has spoken publicly about this."


I just don't see that there's a lot of difference between something that goes on a shirt, that is sold; and a poster that is sold.


He made something like $4 million off of that image, so he can afford to lawyer up.


----------



## IYFGraphics

Vector Girl said:


> He made something like $4 million off of that image, so he can afford to lawyer up.


Yeah...but he said he gave it all to charity, still I don't see the correlation to his trial and garment decorating, if fair use is dictated under the "fair use doctrine" ie (“criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”)....I don't see the connection.


----------



## kimura-mma

Vector Girl said:


> Thanks, Dave. I would love to read your exogesis on using celebrity likenesses.


I know you asked Dave, but I figured I would chime in.

The use of celebrity likeness is illegal without license or permission. I've already explained it in this thread, but the basis of the infringement involves the violation of right of publicity laws.



Vector Girl said:


> btw, when Shepard Fairey goes to court in March, it could change things as far as "fair use" goes ... It's not like this issue is set in concrete.


The Fairey case has nothing to do with the use of celebrity likeness. It is based on the AP's copyright ownership of the image.



Vector Girl said:


> I just don't see that there's a lot of difference between something that goes on a shirt, that is sold; and a poster that is sold.


You may not see the difference, but the law does. And in the eye of the law, t-shirts are view as utilitarian and not a form of communication. So just because something is considered legal for use on a poster does not mean it is automatically legal for use on a t-shirt.


----------



## kimura-mma

PositiveDave said:


> We just need to cut and paste Solmu's 'Some are doing it and get caught...' speech plus a few links to other posts


I'm actually going to start compiling some info on the IP related topics we've had on the forums. Once done, I'll send it along to a few people to see if it's worth posting as an article.


----------



## Vector Girl

Thank you. I appreciate everyone's patience and willingness to share info. I have more questions, but I'm at my day job.


----------



## jolenes

One quick question - I have a photo with our national football player and I started to run a t-shirt business. Can I photoshop that photo in a way to change HIS t-shirt (that he wears on the photo) for MINE design?

EXAMPLE: he's wearing white tee with a banana. Can I change that tee to a black tee with a diamond, which is mine design?


----------



## kimura-mma

jolenes said:


> One quick question - I have a photo with our national football player and I started to run a t-shirt business. Can I photoshop that photo in a way to change HIS t-shirt (that he wears on the photo) for MINE design?
> 
> EXAMPLE: he's wearing white tee with a banana. Can I change that tee to a black tee with a diamond, which is mine design?


What are you going to do with the photo after you edit it? If you want to use it to market your t-shirt business, you should get permission from the player.


----------



## jolenes

I would only post it on social media - THAT'S IT.


----------



## kimura-mma

You would need to get permission to use the players likeness legally.


----------



## aldorabancroft

If your online store provide custom design feature then its legal because customer don't know more about rights so they design by their selves but if you design by your self then its illegal.


----------



## kimura-mma

aldorabancroft said:


> If your online store provide custom design feature then its legal because customer don't know more about rights so they design by their selves but if you design by your self then its illegal.


This may be true in other countries, but not in the US.


----------



## aldorabancroft

kimura-mma said:


> This may be true in other countries, but not in the US.


So do you have rights to print logo of "Microsoft" in bulk t-shirt?


----------



## PatWibble

aldorabancroft said:


> So do you have rights to print logo of "Microsoft" in bulk t-shirt?


A logo is very different to image rights of a celebrities face.

Most logos are covered by both trademark and copyright laws in most countries, so there are few reasons to legitimately print them onto a t-shirt.


----------



## DrivingZiggy

When I went to The Philippines, I bought a t-shirt with this logo:










Blatant ripoff of the intel logo, but using the Tagalog word "inutel" which translates to "idiot." Don't know if it was legal or not.


----------



## into the T

that one might be parody

definitely a good prank for friends who don't speak tagalog


----------



## Revan

It's possible to purchase screen printed shirts or even purchase heat transfers that can be applied to shirts. So while it sometimes seems unlikely, it is possible they could be legal. Because purchasing through licensed distributors is not expensive or difficult


----------



## PatWibble

There are several threads on the forum dealing with this in some depth.

Under US law a celebrity, or anyone else, apparently has the rights to control commercial use of his own image.
In the UK there are no image rights whatsoever, and the issue is primarily controlled by the copyright of the image, along with privacy laws and the 'passing off' tort.
Other countries have their own laws.

The posts earlier in this thread from Positive Dave ( considering that he is posting from the UK and presumably talking about the UK possition) are mostly wrong when talking about the UK law.


----------



## mcohen17

Definitely cannot use the image or likeness of celebrity. You can try and if you fly under the radar it might be fine, but once you get their attention they will at a minimum send a cease and desist letter. And even if you did a caricature of a celebrity, their representatives/lawyers will hassle even if you think it is a "fair use".


----------



## Monster Press

Yes I agree it is better to answer the question. I had some issue with a moderator and he was condescending to put it nicely.


----------



## kevincook

In the United States this would generally be legal only in the case of a political celebrity, if the t-shirt constituted political speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.

In the case of an actor, athlete, or other celebrity, you would be violating that person's right of publicity.

In many states the right of publicity survives the person's death.

Consult an experienced attorney before you undertake anything like this.


----------



## Mosstone

This raises a question for me... Every week at the supermarket I see tabloids and celebrity magazines that are plastered cover to cover with photographs of various celebrities. I'm sure that many of these famous people would prefer these images not be published, but there doesn't seem to be anything they can do to to prevent it. 

Why don't 'right of publicity' laws prevent the photographers and publishers from turning a profit off of celebrity images in this context?


----------



## kimura-mma

Mosstone said:


> This raises a question for me... Every week at the supermarket I see tabloids and celebrity magazines that are plastered cover to cover with photographs of various celebrities. I'm sure that many of these famous people would prefer these images not be published, but there doesn't seem to be anything they can do to to prevent it.
> 
> Why don't 'right of publicity' laws prevent the photographers and publishers from turning a profit off of celebrity images in this context?


Right of publicity specifically protects a person's rights for commercial use, which would include merchandise (such as t-shirts).

But magazines (including tabloids) are considered a form of communication, which are governed under different laws.


----------

