# Licensing Questions



## Interesting (Nov 3, 2007)

I have a retail store that already sells apparel. Given the demand for some items we stock, we have decided to branch out and start our own apparel line. We are starting with t-shirts because of their low cost and high volume nature.

I have a few basic questions about licensing. I'll be asking some questions followed by what I thought was correct. Any help is greatly appreciated.

I'll be using hypothetical examples to better illustrate the point.

If I were to put Bill Murray's face on a shirt, what are the licensing requirements? What about a car or airplane?

My understanding was that if one was to put the face of a celebrity, permission (licensing fees) has to be given by the photographer, not the subject. Which is how paparazzi make their living I guess. In turn, if the image is an artist's rendition of whoever (Bill Murray in this case) then the artist gets compensated. Andy Warhol would be an example, although permission to print their likeness could have very well been given by the subject. So in short, if I were a good enough artist to draw Bill Murray's likeness on a shirt I would be legally allowed to do so without any licensing ramifications.

As for the car and airplane, I was under the impression that as long as the maker's logo or distinguishing labeling (ie. Chevy's cross, BMW's roundel, Mercedes' star, Ferrari's horse, putting American Airlines on the side of the plane you are printing, etc.) is not displayed and the source of the image is your own you are also exempt of any licensing obligations.

That said, the subject is entitled to compensation if their name is used in the image. So a picture of Bill Murray that has his name printed on the bottom, or a picture of an airplane that has 747 will need to have licensing issues resolved with the subjects.

Apologies for the long winded post. Hope to find some answers here.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Interesting said:


> My understanding was that if one was to put the face of a celebrity, permission (licensing fees) has to be given by the photographer, not the subject.


Both: the photographer needs to grant license for the copyright in the photo, the subject needs to grant license to use their likeness.



Interesting said:


> Which is how paparazzi make their living I guess.


The paparazzi make a living under the guise of news reporting. They don't need your permission to take your photo in public, the magazine doesn't need permission to publish because they are reporting the news and not misrepresenting the subject (which gives you an idea of the disconnect between the theory and the reality...).



Interesting said:


> Andy Warhol would be an example


Andy Warhol would not be an example, because he was an artist and you are a commercial entity. Furthermore were Andy alive today, he might not get away with as much in today's legal climate as he did when he was a practising artist.



Interesting said:


> So in short, if I were a good enough artist to draw Bill Murray's likeness on a shirt I would be legally allowed to do so without any licensing ramifications.


In short, no.



Interesting said:


> As for the car and airplane


More complicated, and potentially more wiggle room, but the silhouette of the vehicle may be trademarked. Either way the manufacturer might sue you as if it is, and may or may not win, which may or may not ruin you financially anyway (I don't know about you, but I can't afford to take on Boeing).

It's going to be pretty hard to prove you just coincidentally drew a car that happened to look like a Porsche, and weren't trying to make money off the back of their intellectual property.


----------



## Interesting (Nov 3, 2007)

Thank you so much for your answer!

Next dumb question would be how to get in touch with someone in regards to getting licensing approval and such. The big companies are easy I guess, but what about a celebrity, athlete or other person? Say a Bill Murray, to be consistent with my example.

I am still going with an attorney to make sure everything is in order, but prefer going in knowing something about it prior to consultation. You saved me a couple hours of legal time I'm sure which is a few hunderd bucks!

The cars and planes, I am aware of. For example, Porsche has their 911 protected, and VW has their Beetle protected as well. It isn't so much that I wanted to draw a Porsche and put it on a T claiming that the shape just came to me. More along the lines of lacking the creativity of drawing an original airplane design since they look almost identical to the untrained eye. So the only point of reference to draw a plane for me would be any commercial airliner for example. Same thing with a warbird. My head is thinking "those cool planes from WWII". To others it's a very clear P-51 Mustang B-52 Bomber or whatever.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

Interesting said:


> Next dumb question would be how to get in touch with someone in regards to getting licensing approval and such.


Fortunately I've never had to do it. If I was in that situation, my approach would be to contact someone and simply ask where to send the query: contact the agent and find out where licensing deals should be directed, contact the PR department of the company and ask where to send a letter of interest, etc.



Interesting said:


> I am still going with an attorney to make sure everything is in order, but prefer going in knowing something about it prior to consultation.


I think at this point you're probably better moving on to the attorney. Some things are easy to answer ("Q: Can I print Mickey Mouse? A: No."), but a lot of it is best left to the professionals. They're expensive, but also efficient at answering questions 



Interesting said:


> You saved me a couple hours of legal time I'm sure which is a few hunderd bucks!


I'm sure they could have cleared that up in about two minutes 



Interesting said:


> It isn't so much that I wanted to draw a Porsche and put it on a T claiming that the shape just came to me. More along the lines of lacking the creativity of drawing an original airplane design since they look almost identical to the untrained eye. So the only point of reference to draw a plane for me would be any commercial airliner for example.


Yeah, that makes sense. I don't see that being a problem. Something like a Ferrari silhouette and the slogan "Italian Stallion" is obviously going to get you into trouble, an image of a VW (and nothing else) could get you into trouble, but with something like this Threadless shirt, I don't see how it could be a problem.


----------

