Imitation: Flattering or Litigious?

[LandGirl1980]

So did Bette ever wear this/a dress like it? Doesn't look like her style to me -not classy enough (sorry) is it called the Bette Davis? No, it's called the B Davis. My mum's plumber is Brian Davis. To be honest it's more his style.
Silly, silly lawsuit.

I could not agree more.

 

[MikeBravo]

Maybe they should argue that it is named after Ann B. Davis who played Alice on the Brady Bunch

 

[MikeBravo]

I think that if I was famous, I'd put something in my will allowing people to use my name and image however they wanted after I was dead. It doesn't set well with me that people would sue over the use of my name decades after I died, just to keep making money off of my likeness. I wouldn't want my name associated with such lawsuits, it is not how I'd like to be remembered. It seems rather creepy.

Would you not want to protect your children and grandchildren? I would hate to think, if I was in that position, that an income due to them could be appropriated by some stranger

 

[Guttersnipe]

Two points:
1) I worked in the garment printing industry for many years. Seeking legal remedies that include an injunction compelling the defendant to destroy inventory is common practice when trademarks and/or copyrights have been violated. Major leagues and college sports associations almost always these when someone is caught manufacturing unlicensed merchandise.

2) Stop Staring is going to have a really difficult time building a defense here. Copyright/trademark laws are *in theory* supposed to protect the public from being mislead/confused. The fact that third party retailers sold the dress as the Bettie Davis dress is actually pretty good evidence that for the Davis estate that that is what happened . . .

. . . try not to feel too bad for Stop Staring. They deliberately change(d) the name(s) of design(s) because they know they're not supposed to be using them. They are one of the largest niche market re-pop brands with international distribution channels (e.g. they're big enough, old enough, smart enough to know better).

 

[sheeplady]

Would you not want to protect your children and grandchildren? I would hate to think, if I was in that position, that an income due to them could be appropriated by some stranger

Personally, no. I'd hope that if I was that famous that I'd have been able to provide them already with a lifestyle or skills that allowed them to build their own lives, separate from mine. One of the problems I see with fame is that future generations have to live in the shadow of the famous. If I am able to give my children an education or trade that allows them to develop their own lives, I would like to, rather than living off of an unstable source of income (how popular I am after I am dead).

I'd actually be pretty upset if my child went around suing people over using my name or picture. I would hope that any kids that I raised would be self-sufficient enough to not need to keep gaining money from my estate to maintain their lifestyles. My kids have already inherited my existing wealth upon my death, and have probably benefited from my wealth all their lives- having better educations, homes, etc. than everyone else. I have no desire to be the endless piggybank- other people have to work for their living (including myself when I was famous)- my kids can too. *

*Note: I am not famous. I will never be famous. But I think part of being famous is that a part of your soul becomes the property of society. I'm not saying that this is what famous people should do, but it is how I would feel if I was.

 

[Lady Day]

I totally agree with you morally, sheeplady. Yet there are children, and grandchildren running estates of people who would beg to differ.

LD

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Bette Davis isn't a brand name. She is a public figure.

Incorrect. While she is/was a public figure, her name, likeness, etc. is owned and controlled by her estate. It's the same thing if someone were to come out with a Michael Jackson line of gloves, or an Elvis line of...what...sparkly Spandex jumpsuits. <grin>

There's an easier way around it. The Davis Estate is VERY diligent in protecting their intellectual property. Instead of calling it the "B Davis dress" - name it after one of her well-known characters or allude to it in other ways. "Made of 100% cotton, but definitely not from a cabin..."

 

[Mike in Seattle]

According to wikipedia (not always reliable, of course!) Bette Davis thanked Kim Carnes for making her "a part of modern times". So she probably would have liked the enduring fame.

That may well be true, but Bette Davis is no longer in a position to say who can or can't use her name. That passed to the executors & beneficiaries of her estate when she died. But it can even happen during their lifetime. If they assign their rights to an agency or other sort of arrangement, they no longer have control. I believe that's what happened to Coco Chanel and others. They sold the name as part of their brand at some point in their lives, and later, when they wanted to use it again, they were out of luck.

There was a story along these lines just in the last month or so - WSJ or NY Times. A woman was designing clothes for mid-30s to 50s-aged women. She sold out to Limited or DKNY or some other large fashion house so that her brand could grow nationwide / internationally. Now, several years later, the fashion house has decided to close that chain of stores to focus on their core business and other more profitable brands.

She sold the rights to her name with the business, and can't now go back to designing clothing with her own name. I think she lives in Glouchester, Mass and does painting and pottery.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Perhaps they should have trademarked the name 'Bette Davis'. Then they would have a stronger case for infringment or damage to the brand. Plus to get a trademark in the first place you have to prove that the name/personality in question is worthy of protection and in danger of infringement.

That's the point - the estate has trademarked & registered & protected the name. That's why they already have a pretty strong case.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

I'd actually be pretty upset if my child went around suing people over using my name or picture.

And that IS your choice. But when you're a popular celebrity, your name is money. AFter you're dead, where do you want that money to go? To anyone who wants to use your name to make money for themselves, or would you rather have some sort of control that any profiting from your lifetime's work goes instead to people or entities that you wish to benefit?

Let's take the kids out of it. How about cases where the rights to images & names of celebrities have been left to charitable institutions or schools and the like?

 

[Puzzicato]

There was a story along these lines just in the last month or so - WSJ or NY Times. A woman was designing clothes for mid-30s to 50s-aged women. She sold out to Limited or DKNY or some other large fashion house so that her brand could grow nationwide / internationally. Now, several years later, the fashion house has decided to close that chain of stores to focus on their core business and other more profitable brands.

She sold the rights to her name with the business, and can't now go back to designing clothing with her own name. I think she lives in Glouchester, Mass and does painting and pottery.

And Herve Leger sold his name to BCBGMax Azria and now has to design as Herve Leroux.

 

[Edward]

Any futher news on this? Personality right / Image right is still a developing area of law. This reminds me of two cases in the UK in which the courts refused to recognise a claim based on trade mark as Elvis and Diana, Princess of Wales were historical persons. Of course, had their names and likenesses been registered as TMs prior to their death and that kept up, it might have been different. I should hope as personality right evolves it very much has limits. On the one hand I do feel for those who are exploited by parasitic activity, but on the other it concerns me deeply how the whole concept of "public domain" is under threat. Much of today's media content will never go that way due to the clever use of TMs and other arrangements ensuring control long after copyright is exhausted.

 

[LizzieMaine]

A lot of this actually goes back to the late forties -- it became fashionable for entertainers to form corporations, with their own personalities as the main assets, which they could then sell to other corporations as a way to reduce taxes. This led to all sorts of tangles in later years as to who owned what rights to whom.

 

[sheeplady]

And that IS your choice. But when you're a popular celebrity, your name is money. AFter you're dead, where do you want that money to go? To anyone who wants to use your name to make money for themselves, or would you rather have some sort of control that any profiting from your lifetime's work goes instead to people or entities that you wish to benefit?

Let's take the kids out of it. How about cases where the rights to images & names of celebrities have been left to charitable institutions or schools and the like?

Well, I don't have control, I'm dead. Laws about this stuff could change, the charity goes under (or even sells the use of my name, which I am betting these organizations can do) etc. etc. I'm dead.

I imagine using my name would only help them for a short period of time, unless I became a immortal star, and therefore the charity could become dependent upon my image as a "cash cow" rather than trying to stay relevant and on people's minds. And staying relevant and on peoples minds is what charities should do. Many of the charities that were around 100 years ago aren't relevant today. (And I fundamentally believe that people should give to charity based upon issues, not on celebs).

If I cared that deeply I would have already left them a substantial amount of money while I was alive- perhaps when I died- and had been working very hard to drum up money for them all my life. For all I know a charity could support something I don't like in the future and I gave them legal permission to associate my image with their policy. They can say that I do agree, with a piece of paper as proof saying I wanted to support that organization forever, even after death. No matter what it does.

You have to note that I am talking about my own life, and what I would choose. Obviously I am neither famous nor is this going to be an issue for me. I really don't care what celeb is going to do, nor do they care what I think.

 

[MikeBravo]

How would you feel if you left a house or other property to a child and somebody moved in and started living there, or sold it from under them?

Same thing in my book

Yes, laws to change. They certainly did in Nazi Germany and many communist countries

 

[sheeplady]

How would you feel if you left a house or other property to a child and somebody moved in and started living there, or sold it from under them?

Same thing in my book

Yes, laws to change. They certainly did in Nazi Germany and many communist countries

Well, technically anybody can take my home or my money from me while I am living, for a whole host of reasons. While I would be upset that someone took something that was rightfully theirs, I don't see my image and name as belonging to my children. Chances are my name wasn't even the one I was born with or married, so it might not even be related to their name. (If I was famous, I'd pick a stage name, my name isn't going to fly- too "ethnic" for the movie industry I think). I'd prefer to have left them with the kinds of things that people couldn't take away- education, trade, life skills, and memories. While I would want my children to have some of my money and anything that was personally relevant to them (which could be the family home), I would hope that I hadn't hoarded my money and property until my death. I hope that before I was dead I had shared it with them and charity. (And had prepared my children for life after my death- realizing that at any time they could have nothing but their wits).

Normal everyday people don't get left images and names to make money off of when their mother dies. Normal everyday people do ok despite this.

In a way I see celebs as being both public and private. I hope that if I was a celeb, I would be able to differ between what was public (my persona) and what was private (money, home, etc.)- even if my private things generated from my persona. While I think that leaving my private things to whomever or whatever I wanted is ok, my public persona exists because of the generous spirit of the public. I think the public should have it.

I am also going to note here that I have some non-mainstream views on copyright and ownership because of a previous job I had.

 

[fuzzylizzie]

If I were famous I'd absolutely want my name and image protected by someone I knew and trusted. If not for this law we'd have things like John Wayne Condoms and I Love Lucy Red Hair Dye. You'd not be able to stop people from transposing an iconic star's face onto porn. I don't see this as frivolous at all!

You may not like copyright laws when you are wanting to take someone else's work for your use, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you can see the value of them. Anyone who has a website or a blog can tell you it is a constant battle keeping people from using your writing and images. And the theft of writing on the VFG Label Resource is major and on-going. Writing and photography are work, and the end results belong to the creator. If I were to die, my work would belong to my husband. There's no difference in that and a star's name and image. That person worked very hard to achieve fame, and they - and their heirs - deserve control over that work.

2) Stop Staring is going to have a really difficult time building a defense here. Copyright/trademark laws are *in theory* supposed to protect the public from being mislead/confused. The fact that third party retailers sold the dress as the Bettie Davis dress is actually pretty good evidence that for the Davis estate that that is what happened . . .

. . . try not to feel too bad for Stop Staring. They deliberately change(d) the name(s) of design(s) because they know they're not supposed to be using them. They are one of the largest niche market re-pop brands with international distribution channels (e.g. they're big enough, old enough, smart enough to know better).

Absolutely, otherwise they'd have had no reason for changing the name.

Ultimately, it does not matter what any of us think; what matters is the law and the interpretation of it.

 

[sheeplady]

If I were famous I'd absolutely want my name and image protected by someone I knew and trusted. If not for this law we'd have things like John Wayne Condoms and I Love Lucy Red Hair Dye. You'd not be able to stop people from transposing an iconic star's face onto porn. I don't see this as frivolous at all!

You may not like copyright laws when you are wanting to take someone else's work for your use, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you can see the value of them. Anyone who has a website or a blog can tell you it is a constant battle keeping people from using your writing and images.

Actually, being a published author, I can see the benefits of copyright, and I know well of the struggles you list. I have also seen the bad horrific parts. When I talk about the bad parts, I am talking about things that are lost because the copyright holder cannot be found. I am going to politely say that I dealt in depth with these issues for a very long time period, and I actually have far more experience with this as an author than as somebody who is trying to "steal." (Which is what people are doing if they use your copyrighted stuff without your permission). Suggesting that I am totally motivated in my views by wanting to "take" things (steal) without permission is off base.

Technically, my image (if it is a picture of me) whomever holds the copyright on that photo has the right (and duty, which is the tricky part) to maintain copyright if they want, which probably isn't me if I am a star. However, I do think that the limitations on copyright of physical goods (pictures, words, etc.) should run out after a time period. I don't support anyone being able to keep a death grip on a work for over 100 or 200 years or more. Sorry, I will not agree with that. When you get to the point where there are no timelines for this sort of thing by default, it becomes unclear who holds the copyright, which means culture is going to be lost.

See, the great thing about copyright is it is up to the copyright owner to determine what happens with their goods. I can't see the harm in somebody deciding that they personally want to release their copyright on their death. It is up to the copyright holder how their stuff is used by others. It is my *right* to determine how people use my materials, and therefore it is my *right* to say if I am going to allow people to use them or not.

I know I am a minority viewpoint here, but it is how I feel.

 

[sheeplady]

And just to clarify because apparently my point is not clear:

In this entire discussion, I have been talking about my own personal choices. Although I do see some necessary changes in US copyright law, I am speaking about personal choices and what I would do if I was famous.

Anything I hold the copright to is *mine.* If I decide to release my copyright on my death, that is and should be my *right* as the person who holds copyright. It absolutely does not infringe on your own ability to have others' hold copyright on your things after your death. I'm not suggesting that you should do what I do. I'm not suggesting getting rid of copyright law.

 

[fuzzylizzie]

Suggesting that I am totally motivated in my views by wanting to "take" things (steal) without permission is off base.

Actually, I was suggesting no such thing, and my comments were directed to no one in particular. I'm sorry if you took offense.