Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[po.ubd]

So, let's take a popular tv show.. like how i met you mother.

Say, a fan makes these little things like, dolls of the characters.

Is that already a copyright violation? Since the likeness is really of the actor itself, and not of the artistic work..

But then I'm thinking if the doll is, say, 'dressed' as the character, then it might be?

So at what point does it constitute copyright violation?

How about, making them and giving them away and not making any profit off it?

[Smokin]

Depends on the state you are in.

The right of publicity laws (COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BEAST FROM COPYRIGHT LAWS) varies from state to state, but most legislation makes exceptions for fan art and/or artists, and a strong argument can be made that artistic depictions of an actor or character (not merchandise), is protected under the first amendment.

California right of publicity laws
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d4/1/2/2/3/s3344

As far as the copyright issue is concerned,...... well unfortunately there is no black and white answer for any copyright question. The reality is that its very likely that fan art is protected under fair use or the first amendment. If however you make a ton of dolls and sell them for profit as characters of a show, then that's much more likely to be considered a derivative of the original show and is clearly a copyright violation. Think Star Wars, ....Gorge Lucas made billions in making chewie and Hans Solo dolls (a derivative work of his movies). Anyone else who tried to do the same would be violating his copyright, ....or in other words, his right to have a monopoly & make money off his creation in various shapes and forms.

[Isaac]

but most legislation makes exceptions for fan art and/or artists

Can you point to an example of right of publicity legislation with exceptions for artists?

[Smokin]

Washington:

(1) For purposes of RCW 63.60.050, the use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with matters of cultural, historical, political, religious, educational, newsworthy, or public interest, including, without limitation, comment, criticism, satire, and parody relating thereto, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under this chapter. A matter exempt from consent under this subsection does not lose such exempt status because it appears in the form of a paid advertisement if it is clear that the principal purpose of the advertisement is to comment on such matter.

     (2) This chapter does not apply to the use or authorization of use of an individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any of the following:

     (a) Single and original works of fine art, including but not limited to photographic, graphic, and sculptural works of art that are not published in more than five copies;

Illinois also has an exception for art considered non commercial, and Ive come across other states who made similar exceptions but vary in how art is defined. Like one state (i dont recall which), defined art as upto 5 prints before it was considered comercial , while another state I believe had it listed for considerably more. Most states keep it brief and vague though.

but most legislation makes exceptions for fan art and/or artists

I should clarify this, most legislation on publicity rights do put in "fair use" exceptions for public figures, news, ect which fan art can reasonably fall into. Some states (too few) make specific exceptions specifically for artists.

[po.ubd]

Looks like there's more researching for me to do but this is a good overview to start with. Thank you