By the way, to whoever made that comment about Home Depot, that was really freakin’ funny.
AWB wrote:
As an avid Tiger follower since his 2nd US AM, I have never read or heard anything about Tiger dipping, let alone chewing, as in having a wad of 'baccy in his cheek. I know this isn’t GD, but I’d love to see a cite?
No. You are confusing news gathering with commercial sales of a famous person’s image.
It’s not restricted to endorsements. The right to publicity covers the commercial use of Tiger’s image and name. Selling paintings of him is a commercial use of his image.
No. The court really didn’t agree with you because the situations are very different. The Cardtoons cards were parodies of baseball trading cards featuring caricatures of baseball players and parody the amount of money players make, among other things. The parody element was central to the decision.
In the Tiger Woods case the artist was not parodying Woods at all. He was painting pictures of Woods and selling them, so no copyright fair use issue is involved.
I guess making his own bed is ok, but not the morning he leaves. A lazy maid might see it as an opportunity to take another break and not change the sheets.
No, you are confusing any activity that makes a profit with commercial activity within the intended meaning of the laws surrounding the “right to publicity.” From the Cardtoons case:
Newspapers are commercial businesses. According to your interpretation of the law, if a photographer were to sell a photo to a magazine for a profit, which in turn were mass produced and sold to the public for a profit, then his actions would be protected by the First Amendment; but if the photographer were to sell the photo directly to the public, he’s violating the celebrity’s rights.
The Cardtoons decision explicitly was not based on the fact that the cards were parodies.
When I said that the District Court agreed with me, I was referring to the one in the Tiger Woods case (ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc.). A quote from that decision: “The fact that it is sold is irrelevant to the determination of whether it receives First Amendment protection.” Even if the law were on Tiger Woods’ side (which it’s not, according to the judge in the case and large numbers of legal scholars), I think he’s being a jerk for suing. It’s free, positive publicity for him, and he’s got enough money already.
P.S. This case is not about copyright.
I’m just going on the case you cited. That case discusses Oklahoma’s right to publicity statute which has “a ‘news’ exception, [which] exempts use of a person’s identity in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account…”
The decision is based on the fact that “[t]he cards provide social commentary on public figures, major league baseball players, who are involved in a significant commercial enterprise.” The “social commentary” is achieved by the parody. Had these cards been straightforward baseball trading cards, Cardtoons would have lost.
Your quote from the case that discusses the importance of baseball cards was in response to MLB’s argument that the First Amendment doesn’t apply because baseball cards are non-traditional media. It wasn’t related to the parody aspect at all. In fact, MLB seemed to argue that even if parodies were generally protected, they wouldn’t be on baseball cards because cards are non-traditional media.
This area of law is unsettled. Different courts have ruled different ways.
So he’s a jerk for disagreeing on what type of publicity he gets? Seems to imply that you’d agree that he should be able to sue if it was negative publicity. And I very seriously doubt that he did it for a big judgment.
I don’t particulary care either way whether Tiger wins or loses these suits, but I don’t think it makes him a jerk. I also don’t buy the “poor artist” argument. The guy was selling a limited edition print of an athlete to a very wealth demographic. This isn’t The Man vs. the poor starving artist. At best it’s a commercial litigation.