Personalities or Egos?
The Guernsey Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has opened a public consultation on draft laws that would for the first time anywhere in the world allow celebrities to register their personality rights as a form of intellectual property. A sports law expert said the chance for enhanced legal certainty over their image and …
personalities anyway outside of what is given to them in a film script, what would they actually register?
So, the next photo album of celebrity snapshots will be compiled with pictures that have placed a prominet black bar over each and every registered prick with a price-tag put on it.
Intellectual Property: an oxymoron.
This legislation seriously jeopardises two ancient and venerated forms of entertainment - caricature and impressions. Such fictitious rights render many such forms of satire an infringement of those rights. Who loses? The consumers, as usual. Will we see Apple vs Samsung style patent wars over personalities who think they have rights to personality traits that we all knew "someone at school who always did that anyway". Pointless and damaging IMHO.
It specifically states that using the image for non-profit uses is OK...you just can't make money from it. So caricature and satire are fine, provided you don't do it professionally. Anyway, it's Guernsey - who the hell cares what they legislate (apart from people in Guernsey, of course)?
So that's Rory Bremmer out of a job then.
It's not Apple, but rather White vs. Samsung (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/white.html [dissent]).
For those of you not paying attention almost a decade ago, Samsung brought out a series of commercials showing the ``future'', including one of a robot in a blond wig and evening gown standing in front of a board full of letters.
Vanna White sued for $1M, claiming Samsung had used her ``likeness'', protected under California law, and hypnotized enough 9th-Circuit judges to declare that she had been harmed under California law. She actually got ~$400k. The dissent referenced is well worth a read.
I have a hard time sympathizing with the personalities wanting protection. Those famous enough to be covered by such a law already make more than enough for a living in which in which they feel no pain. Poor babies.
Mr and Mrs Beckham ... etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Delete their names from the Internet and the world will be a happy place indeed.
OI! You can't behave like a talentless twat! I have a prior claim on that and I'll sue you!
That should cull a large part of the X-Pop-Strictly-Got-No-Talent-On-Ice brigade!
Paris Hilton icon, since it'd probably fall foul of this law, where it to ever come to pass.
The law explicitly includes exemptions for satirical usage.
You're right, it's still funny though.
I could have called it just another example of lawyers making laws more complicated to ensure their future fruitful employment. Any attempt to simplify laws by making new ones (without repealing older, more complex legislature) is a joke. But that'd be boring, depressing and right.
So if they pass this law in Guernsey, does it only apply in Guernsey? And if so, how much difference will it make when most of the newspapers and magazines that show the embarrasing photos of celebs are in UK, USA, etc.?
On the other hand, if Guernsey can just have their own laws on IP that work across the planet, can SeaLand pass their own laws too and start dictating global terms?(they could certainly do with the income!)
That'd require SeaLand to sign up to international IP treaties.
International enforcement of IP is a horrible mess, made worse by the Internet. It's a horrible subject which could be argued at length.
would require sealand to first be a country.
It is not.
Do those people even know what the word "intellectual" means?
As in conversation recently I've not mentioned the war?
on whether earlier you mentioned it once but you think you got away with it.
does this promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?
So all the gossip mags will have to stop printing pictures of celebs? May as well stop printing entirely.
In which case I support this law!
H6242 — Kill all the lawyers.
Each and every individual should be allowed to register their "Personality Rights".
Especially those who were raised with "Too much Self Esteem".
That way, everyone will have their god given chance to be self important.
One law for all or none, I think that is how it is supposed to be.
Harry Bloggs, bus driver, who 'allegedly' ran over a kitten yesterday, except it now turns out the kitten was already dead, actually it turns out it was a toy kitten and he didtn't actually run over it, but too late the tabloids and talk-back radio have already got hold of it. Old 'arry would probably want some access to a bit of this as well, but is he famous enough?
but not before. And since he now is, but is through an act of the papers, could the papers claim the celebrity rights and therefore own Old 'arry?
How does this affect the PARIS (retroactively) and LOHAN projects? Will the Reg have to ensure that LOHAN does not pass over Guernsey? I can imagine Guernsey scrambling fighter planes to intercept LOHAN :-)
But surely one of the prime qualifications to have your "personality" protected is to prove you have one in the first place... that ought to disqualify most celebs then... (after of course the first person who registers "money grabbing vacuous twat" as a personality)
The net effect will be to reduce the instances of reproduction of a celebrity's personality - I'm sure we'd all be happy with that.
The counter claim by Victoria Beckham to the Patent Office over Peterborough United's attempt to trademark the term "Posh"?
Egotistical twats can now add another layer of varnish on their glistening turds in some totally unimportant piece of emerged landmass with laws that do not concern 99.9% of the world.
That's really news that only a media whore could be interested in.
If you in the news, no matter who you are, it is assumed that what ever is produced has a value directly correlating to news sources profits.
Everyone should get a cut of the action.
"Special people" should have to go to court for extenuating circumstances.
One mans privacy is not another mans open door.