Supreme Court Sides with Heirs of Three Stooges
PUSSSYKATT
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Andy Warhol sold prints made from movie star
photographs -- so it never occurred to veteran portrait artist Gary Saderup
that when he sold drawings of the Three Stooges on T-shirts that he was
breaking the law.
However on Monday no less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web
sites) said he was.
The court, without comment, sided with the heirs of the Three Stooges in a
dispute with the Los Angeles artist over his lithographs and T-shirts bearing
realistic drawings of the wacky trio that first became famous in the 1920s.
The justices let stand a California Supreme Court ruling that an artist must
get approval and pay licensing fees to depict a celebrity -- even if he has
been dead for decades -- unless the new work contains ``significant creative
elements'' and is not just a realistic reproduction. When celebrity drawings
are too realistic and are sold without permission, the California court said
they violate heirs' rights to share in profits under the state's right of
publicity laws.
Saderup, who has drawn over 100 celebrity likenesses over the years from Elvis
to James Dean, was ordered to return the $75,000 in profits he made from his
Stooges T-shirts and pay about $150,000 in legal fees.
While attorneys for the Stooges' heirs said on Monday they were thrilled with
the decision, attorneys for Saderup said the decision could have grave
implications not only for the First Amendment rights of artists who draw
celebrities but also for celebrity photographers and celebrity impersonators.
``It's unfortunate,'' said Stephen Burnett, lead counsel for Saderup. ``There's
now a taboo for artists and photographers. They are now on notice that they
better not depict any celebrity or dead celebrity unless it's a politician or
someone else who has news value.'' He added the ruling leaves it up to judges
to decide what is and isn't a legitimate work of art.
Saderup told Reuters he was ``very disappointed. ... I think the whole thing is
a strike against artistic freedom ... I studied art professionally and worked
at my craft for 40 years. ... I'm actually trying to do something uplifting
with the subject matter. It's sad that they (the court) didn't see the
creativity in that.''
Under the California Supreme Court ruling, the artist can be held liable unless
judges find the portrait added ''significant creative elements'' that
transforms it beyond something more than a mere celebrity likeness or
imitation.
Lawyers for the Stooges heirs said the law gives celebrities' heirs the rights
to likenesses, names, voices and signatures. It exempts original works of art,
news publications, books, music, radio, television and movies.
They said there were no constitutional problems with a law that requires
permission of the heirs for the sale of products using images of deceased
celebrities.
The ruling by the California court was viewed as a victory for celebrities in
the battle over who should control publicity rights -- similar to trademarks or
copyrights -- to famous names and images. Heirs of the Stooges said Saderup's
drawings cut into profits they expected from the sale of licensed products sold
on their Web site (http://www.threestooges.com).
``Saderup has called himself an artist but there's no evidence of that. He's a
businessman,'' said Robert Benjamin, stepson of Curly Joe Derita, the third
replacement for the original Curly, and the attorney representing other Stooges
relatives in their court battle.''
``He takes a simple charcoal drawing and puts it on a T-shirt. Now he will have
to get permission from a celebrity, or if celebrity is deceased, from his
heirs,'' Benjamin said.
Saderup argued his use of the images did not violate any of the heirs' rights
because the lithographs and T-shirts did not constitute an advertisement or
endorsement of any product.
``Who knows -- if we tint our pictures like Andy Warhol did would they then be
protected free speech? Does this now mean that every one of my drawings for the
last 40 years will be judged individually? I don't plan to alter the way I do
things,'' Saderup said.
Had Saderup been able to prove that people were buying his original work and
not just a likeness of one of the Three Stooges he may have won the case,
Benjamin said.
``An artist has to show that he has transformed the image in some way. That's
fair and workable.''
(Additional reporting by James Vicini in Washington)
SEND EMAIL TO PUSSS...@aol.com
AGC FAQ and FUN STUFF
http://members.aol.com/pusssykatt/agcfaq.html
BLIND ITEM REHASH:
http://members.aol.com/agcgossipqueen/mainpage.html