selling drawings of celebrities

[rainbow]

Is it legal to sell drawings of celebrities and/or sports figures, or does one need permission?

 

[Guest]

[No message]

 

[Guest]

[No message]

 

[reg]

[No message]

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rainbow:
Is it legal to sell drawings of celebrities and/or sports figures, or does one need permission?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

Unless there is some public interest or newsworthiness, the answer is no. You would be misappropriating someone's likeness for your own personal "gain" and thus, depriving the actual person from making their own profits from their own lives.

Read the following case, as just one example:


Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 536, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 790
[No. B065165. Second Dist., Div. Two. Apr 30, 1993.]
MICKEY DORA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
FRONTLINE VIDEO, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
SUMMARY
Plaintiff brought suit against a producer of a surfing documentary, seeking damages for the unauthorized use of his name, voice, and likeness. Footage of famous surfers, including plaintiff, appeared in the documentary. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
(Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. NWC49667, David A. Horowitz, Judge.)
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that the public interest in the subject matter of the program gave rise to a constitutional protection against liability, and thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's common law cause of action for appropriation. The court also held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's statutory cause of action for appropriation (Civ. Code, § 3344), since the use of plaintiff's name and likeness was among those uses exempt from consent under Civ. Code, § 3344, subd. (d). Specifically, the court held that the surfing documentary fell under the category of "public affairs" referred to in Civ. Code, § 3344, subd. (d), which does not constitute a use for which consent is required.
(Opinion by Nott, J., with Boren, P. J., and Fukuto, J., concurring.)
HEADNOTES
(1) Summary Judgment §25—Appellate Review—Standard of Review.—The summary judgment procedure aims to discover whether there is evidence requiring the fact-weighing process of a trial. In reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, the appellate court must resolve all doubts in favor of the party opposing the judgment. The reviewing court conducts a de novo examination to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, or whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.[Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 536, page 537]
(2) Privacy §2—Definitions and Distinctions—Appropriation—Dual Aspects.—One kind of invasion that the law of privacy protects against is the appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness. Appropriation itself has two aspects. The difference between the two is found not in the activity of the defendant, but in the nature of the plaintiff's right and the nature of the resulting injury. The first type of appropriation is the right of publicity, which is in essence that the reaction of the public to name and likeness, which may be fortuitous or which may be managed or planned, endows the name and likeness of the person involved with commercially exploitable opportunities. The other type is the appropriation of the name and likeness that brings injury to the feelings, which concerns one's own peace of mind, and that is mental and subjective.
(3) Privacy §6—Matters of Public Interest—Public Persons—Celebrity Status Among Specific Groups.—In an action against the producer of a surfing documentary for the unauthorized use of plaintiff's name, voice, and likeness, plaintiff established that his name and likeness were commercially exploitable to some extent, notwithstanding that he was not a celebrity to the general public. The evidence established that plaintiff achieved a certain celebrity status among those members of the surfing subculture to whom the program would have been of interest, and thus, under any standard, his name and likeness were commercially exploitable to some extent.
(4a-4c) Privacy §5—Matters of Public Interest—Surfing Documentary—Unauthorized Use of Surfer's Name, Voice, and Likeness.—In an action against the producer of a surfing documentary for the unauthorized use of plaintiff's name, voice, and likeness, the public interest in the subject matter of the program gave rise to a constitutional protection against liability, and thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's common law cause of action for appropriation. The program was a documentary about a specific time and place, and those who were a part of that era contributed to the development of a life-style that has become famous and celebrated in popular culture. Although the persons featured in the program, as individuals, may not have had a particular influence, as a group they had great impact. In addition, the fact that the cover of the program packaging featured scantily clothed women was insufficient to establish damage to plaintiff's feelings. Women were not prominently featured in the program, and since reasonable minds could not differ over the legitimate public [Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 536, page 538]interest nature of the program, no material factual issues were raised by this contention. As the program contained matters of public interest, defendant did not need plaintiff's consent to use his name, likeness, and voice.
(5) Privacy §5—Matters of Public Interest—Liability From Publication of Name or Likeness.—Although both celebrities and noncelebrities have the right to be free from the unauthorized exploitation of their names and likenesses, every publication of someone's name or likeness does not give rise to an appropriation action. Publication of matters in the public interest, which rests on the right of the public to know and the freedom of the press to tell, is not ordinarily actionable. Public interest attaches to people who, by their accomplishments or mode of living, create a bona fide attention to their activities. Furthermore, matters in the public interest are not restricted to current events; magazines, books, radio, and television may legitimately inform and entertain the public with the reproduction of past events, travelogues, and biographies.
(6a, 6b) Privacy §5—Matters of Public Interest—Surfing Documentary as Newsworthy.—In an action against the producer of a surfing documentary for unauthorized use of plaintiff's name, voice, and likeness, the documentary met the criteria for newsworthiness (the social value of the facts published, the depth of the intrusion into ostensibly private affairs, and the extent to which an individual voluntarily acceded to a position of public notoriety), and thus those criteria did not provide a basis for reversal of the summary judgment in favor of defendant. While the "social value" of the documentary may have been limited, so was the level of intrusion into plaintiff's private affairs. Individuals may, by their own activities, or by force of circumstances, become public personages and thereby relinquish a part of their right of privacy to the extent the public has a legitimate interest in their affairs or character. Further, almost all footage of plaintiff was taken while surfing or on the beach, and voluntary action in a public place waives the right of privacy. Finally, plaintiff did not state that his audio interview was private or for restricted use, and it could therefore be assumed that it was not. Publication of the interview was constitutionally protected absent a showing that the publishers knew their statements were false, or that they published them in reckless disregard of the truth.
(7) Privacy §5—Matters of Public Interest—Criteria for Newsworthiness—When Applicable.—The three-part standard for newsworthiness [Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 536, page 539](the social value of the facts published, the depth of th