Grey area with copyright/property rights

[ausf]

Help me wrap my head around something.

First off, this is in no way asking about specifics of any company or current work out there or to assume anything about some or their intentions.

The question is regarding commercial release and public figure and intellectual rights.

I know if I did a bust of Hitler, no one will care or stand up a claim rights to him, but what if I did Eisenhower? I assume there are family members or a foundation or something out there. He was a President, so is it open?

If so, what about Schwarzenegger? I assume Cameron has the rights to him as Terminator, but what about as Governor? Or does Arnold have the rights no matter what? Or is it a matter of presentation. Say Arnold can't claim issue with a bust of him at a podium, but a pose of him clubbing puppies could be slanderous.

I know Frankenstein's monster is public domain, that's the reason why there were so many cheap toys of it, but are public figures part of public domain?

 

[gordy]

Great question. I wish I had a definitive answer. There are so many interpretations.

To your point and even further, what defines notoriety to the point when someone sues for legal action?

Case in point, there are bajilion figures of the soldier on the left. Can his relatives or remaining family sue for compensation ?

 

[ausf]

I always assumed that was kind of the 'to the victors...' and all of that. At least with the larger model companies and subjects. Messerschmidt is not going to pursue someone releasing a Bf 109, but Grumman may have rights to a Wildcat. Maybe not, I don't know. I doubt they'd want a model company releasing kits of current projects.

But then look at political cartoons, what's the difference if I sculpted and released a caricature of President as opposed to drawing and publishing one?

 

[Helm]

I believe if you do a caricature/cartoon figure you can call it parody and be ok but if you go to jail I am not a lawyer

 

[FigureLover]

I think that to get all the answers to your questions you would have to dig so deep into the legal ramifications that it could take you months to decipher it all. Also most countries have differing laws as to copywrite so there is an issue there as well. My take on it (and I could definately be wrong) is that as a public person who isnt using their persona as a busines ie president, military general etc cant be held under a copywrite law as they are effectively working for the common people/government not a so called business to make money (obviously that depends on who you ask!!!). As to depicting them in a slanderous position, that is different as its deemed as an attack on the person and could be sued upon under defamatory laws, nothing to do with copywrite and everyone is covered by that law.
Its a very deep query that you will probably get quite a few different answers
Ben

 

[Martin64]

Interesting question - as far as I have heard the family of the German soldier of Kampfgruppe Hansen mentioned by Gordy tried to get some influence on the publishment of the pictures of him to protect his personal rights. This was denied because he is regarded as a historical person for the moment that the picture was taken.
I guess that the same refers to copyrights in respect to sculpting - historical persons like presidents, military leaders etc can be portayed without getting into trouble. Fictional characters like actors of movies, models posing for commercial products etc are protected by copyright laws. Doing these kind of characters you can face many troubles. Just one example: When some years ago a garage kit of Sigourney Weaver as Ripley from Alien 2 was released by Geometric Designs they had to change the figure to get approval because Mrs Weaver insisted that she always has to be portrayed without weapons. Anyway - because of the different legal interpretations of copyrights throughout the world it is better to ask for a permission if there is a doubt.
Cheers, Martin

 

[ausf]

Thanks guys.

Scale probably works into it too. If a small operation is producing figures of a subject there is probably little chance of ruffling feathers of anyone, unless it is slanderous. I doubt anyone would even notice, since they wouldn't be filling shelves at a big box store with them anyway. Patton's family is probably not browsing a figure show unless they're either collectors or artists and if so, they'd probably buy the figure.

Of course if it was of a character from a film or comic book, then producing a product would certainly limit their ability to do so and they would be more protective of the rights, even for small producers.

I would imagine that even if there was legal grounds for objection of a historical figure, the solution would be a cease and desist order.

 

[ausf]

Gordy,

I know any National Archive photo is fair use, perhaps that photo is the same with the Bundes Archiv (sp?). In the US, you could go to College Park, MD and browse though the Archives for as long as you wish, copying images and then head to the publisher. I believe there's hundreds of thousands photos to sort through. Imagine all the photos taken by military photographers during WWII, plus captured German film. Quite a few authors do just that for photo ref books as well as modeling and historical research.

Only requirement is the 'Courtesy of the US National Archive' caption.

 

[old grumbler]

Nah! Do what you want, the wider world doesn't give a rats about miniscule hobbies like this one, the only time there may be problems are with 'movie characters' that are unlicensed but are usually called something different although it's obvious to one and all what the subject is supposed to represent. Andrea pursued this type of work for a while. As for historical characters no there isn't any 'protected' rights and why would anyone want to do a figure of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the first place? The guy is a crashing bore. Predator was good, Terminator shows it's age now, Kindergarten Cop was his finest hour. Should have gotten an Oscar but didn't.