# Deceased Famous Person/President Copyright/Trademark



## geanwijo (Aug 15, 2009)

I looked and didn't find anything that answered this question elsewhere. 

Can I put a drawing (mine or someone else's that I purchase and get a release for) of a famous person on a t-shirt and sell it? What about a US President? What about their name?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## charles95405 (Feb 1, 2007)

who is giving the release? Just the artist? I doubt that is enough..famous people..just as Elvis..have survivors etc..that earn $$ from the estate...So being dead does not exempt you from needing a release..For Presidents..I suspect that might be the same. True many do it and get by...with my luck I wouldn't..

But added advice....this is NOT legal advice..just an opinion...you should decide on the famous person that you want and get advice from an attorney that specializes in this


----------



## Pat-T (Aug 16, 2009)

Copyright law can be found everywhere on the web. This link will take you to the Wikipedia info on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

It is plain to see that a persons likeness is copyright protected for the life of the author plus 70 years.

Hope this helps you a bit! Good Luck!

The *Copyright Term Extension Act* (CTEA) of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Since the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.[1] Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1, 1978 was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date.
 
Expansion of U.S. copyright law



This law, also known as the *Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act*, *Sonny Bono Act*, or pejoratively as the *Mickey Mouse Protection Act*, effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that or if the copyright gets extended again. Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired. The Act did extend the terms of protection set for works that were already copyrighted, and is retroactive in that sense. However, works created before January 1, 1978 but not published or registered for copyright until recently are addressed in a special section (17 U.S.C. § 303) and may remain protected until 2047. The Act became Pub.L. 105-298 on October 27, 1998.


----------



## Pat-T (Aug 16, 2009)

Hi Again: Here are two pertinent excerpts from http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/doc......htm.&nbsp that can be applied to our industry. The first is "_Using someone's image for commercial benefit_" and the second is "_Putting someone in a false light or defaming someone_." Be careful here because this regards international law and states that it could be different in some countries (my first post re this clears up what the deal is in the U.S.)

*• Using someone’s image for commercial benefit
*Many countries recognize that individuals have a _right of publicity_. The right of publicity is the direct opposite of the right of privacy. It recognizes that a person’s image has economic value that is presumed to be the result of the person’s own effort and it gives to each person the right to exploit their own image.

Under this right, you could be liable if you use a photograph of someone without their consent to gain some _commercial benefit_.

Although the right of publicity is frequently associated with celebrities, every person, regardless of how famous, has a right to prevent unauthorized use of their name or image for commercial purposes. However, as a matter of practice, right of publicity suits are typically brought by celebrities, who are in a better position than ordinary individuals to demonstrate that their identity has commercial value. You should, therefore, act with special caution before using a photograph of a _celebrity_ for your own commercial gain. If you consider selling photos of celebrities or using them in advertisements or on your website, then you should certainly obtain photographic releases (that is, permission to do so) from the people portrayed in your shots.

_*Example:*_ Putting an unauthorized photograph of the tennis star Kim Clijsters on the cover of a sports magazine after she wins a grand slam final, would probably not be considered an infringement of Kim’s right of publicity, since the use is mainly informative. Conversely, if you print that same picture on posters and market them, you are simply trying to make money by exploiting her image. Kim Clijsters would have grounds to file a lawsuit for infringement of her right of publicity. This can result in monetary damages against you, and/or forced removal of the posters.

_*Example:*_ A photographer who displays someone’s portrait, without having first obtained the permission, in his shop window or on his website to advertise portrait services, may in some countries be liable for violating the privacy rights of the portrayed person.xiii


While an individual’s right to privacy generally ends when the individual dies, in many countries, the publicity rights continue many years _after death_.xiv This means, for example, that it is illegal in some countries to use a photo of Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley for commercial purposes without the consent of their estates. As a matter of fact, many representatives of well-known authors, musicians, actors, photographers, politicians, sports figures, celebrities, and other public figures continue to control and license the uses of those persons’ names, likenesses, etc.


*• Putting someone in a false light or defame someone*


Photographs can place someone in a false light or defame someone.xvii It can occur, for example, when a picture is airbrushed or altered in a way that exposes the subject to hatred or ridicule. It can also occur when a photo is used to illustrate text in a way that it creates a false impression. This often happens when significant information about someone is either omitted from or added to a story such that the person is portrayed in a false light.xviii


_*Example*_: A photo depicts a man who is incidentally walking in front of a brothel. Publishing that photo to illustrate an article on child prostitution could lead to a lawsuit.


_*Example*_: Adding a caption under a photograph of a Buddhist leader that falsely attributes a quote on religious intolerance to him is likely to amount to defamation.


_*Example*_: Figure skater Nancy Kerrigan brought a defamation suit against a company that was selling pornographic photos fudged to resemble her. One photo showed a nude woman ice-skating. Nancy Kerrigan’s face was affixed onto the nude body. The photos were advertised on the Internet and could be bought on a CD-ROM.


_*Example*:_ Photographers may be liable for defamation, false advertising or unfair competition if they help to create advertisements that lower the reputation of a competitor’ character, his business or his products or services.


Never use photographs in a way that exposes someone to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or reflects unfavorably upon one’s personal morality or integrity. A person who is portrayed in a false light or defamed may bring a lawsuit against you for the damages he has suffered (such as humiliation, the loss of a job or the ability to earn a living).


----------

