the most famous or notorious lawsuits in film history
Anthony Gaza Man an Ancient Race
do you think spielberg will sue me if i retell ET with hot babe from outerspace?
Nick Macpherson
>i say kurosawa suing leone. damned shameful.
Shirley Temple suing Graham Greene because he said that she had an audience of
pedophiles.
Ivan G Shreve Jr
message news:205ad494.02050...@posting.google.com...
> i say kurosawa suing leone. damned shameful.
>
> do you think spielberg will sue me if i retell ET with hot babe from
outerspace?
Isn't this a Fred Olen Ray film?
Ivan ("Whoops...wrong thread...")
--
"If I always knew what I meant, I'd be a genius." -- Dick Powell, MURDER, MY
SWEET (1944)
ros...@dslextreme.com
1920's. Request refused by his mother and step dad - so he filled a suit for 4
million but the court awarded him only $126,000 in 1939 as under the California law
at that time he had no rights.
As a result the California legislature passed "The Child Actors Bill" popularly know
as the "Coogan Act" which would set up a trust fund for child actors to protect
their earnings.
Rosanne
Sagebrush
seven year contract rule to break her contract with WB.
From a website:
The "Seven-Year Law" has been in effect since 1872, although originally it
made personal service agreements binding for only two years. In 1919 the two
years was changed to five years, and in 1931, to seven years.
The "Seven-Year Law" first became a big deal in the entertainment industry
in 1947, when the actress Olivia DeHavilland sued Warner Brothers, using the
"Seven-Year Law" as the legal basis for escaping/exiting her employment
agreement with Warner Bros. The lawsuit was eventually decided in Olivia
DeHavilland's favor, and played a big role in the creation of a new "free
agency" era for actors, many of whom had previously seen their careers
shelved by the studios, without having any significant practical recourse
due to the power of the studios. As a result of the lawsuit, the "Seven-Year
Law" is still sometimes referred to as the "DeHavilland law," even though
the law had been in effect for many years before the DeHavilland lawsuit.
Sagebrush
"Anthony Gaza Man an Ancient Race" <thegre...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:205ad494.02050...@posting.google.com...
unidyne
"Anthony Gaza Man an Ancient Race" <thegre...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:205ad494.02050...@posting.google.com...
>
> do you think spielberg will sue me if i retell ET with hot babe from
outerspace?
Wasn't that done with reverse gender in "Starman"?
Frank M. Miller
"Sagebrush" <sage...@pobox.com> wrote:
=Olivia DeHavilland's suit against Warner Brothers in 1947. She used the
=seven year contract rule to break her contract with WB.
=
=From a website:
=
=The "Seven-Year Law" has been in effect since 1872, although originally it
=made personal service agreements binding for only two years. In 1919 the two
=years was changed to five years, and in 1931, to seven years.
=
=The "Seven-Year Law" first became a big deal in the entertainment industry
=in 1947, when the actress Olivia DeHavilland sued Warner Brothers, using the
="Seven-Year Law" as the legal basis for escaping/exiting her employment
=agreement with Warner Bros. The lawsuit was eventually decided in Olivia
=DeHavilland's favor, and played a big role in the creation of a new "free
=agency" era for actors, many of whom had previously seen their careers
=shelved by the studios, without having any significant practical recourse
=due to the power of the studios. As a result of the lawsuit, the "Seven-Year
=Law" is still sometimes referred to as the "DeHavilland law," even though
=the law had been in effect for many years before the DeHavilland lawsuit.
=
What she sued over was their adding suspension time to her contract after
it had run its seven-year course. She claimed it violated the law that
said no personal service agreement could be extended beyond seven years.
This created a major breakthrough at the time since studio contract talent
who had gone off to fight in World War II had been put on suspension while
in the service. The ruling meant that MGM, for instance, couldn't tack
that time onto James Stewarts' contract, which I believe had expired
during World War II.
+===================================================================+
"No problem. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
--Samuel Beckett
frnklin at mindspring dot com (please note correct email address, albeit spelled out)
Atlanta, GA
"Hey, guys, what's the big deal? We sing to the gorilla, and then we move on." --Rachel Davis Matthews Clark Frame Cory Cory Cory Hutchins, final episode, ANOTHER WORLD
+===================================================================+
dick wagner
Interesting that you should look for an association between lawsuits
and Hollywood. In fact, lawyers (and their suits) were virtually the
mid-wife of Hollywood. According to Kevin Starr ("Inventing the Dream,"
pps 285 and following) and others, it came about in this way.
The origins of the motion picture technology trace to 1872 when an
English-born photographer Eadweard Muybridge was retained by railroad
magnate and former California governor Leland Stanford to win a wager.
Stanford, among else, was a horse breeder and had wagered his friend
$25,000 that when a horse was in a full gallop there were moments when
all four hooves were off the ground. Stanford commissioned Muybridge to
get photographic evidence. The photographer set up a series of twelve
cameras along the track, each triggered by a different trip wire; the
running horse himself set off the cameras.
The result was a perfect sequence of still photos that showed the horse
in different moments of his stride; sure enough, one of them showed four
hooves off the ground. But, interestingly when a person flipped through
the whole set it gave the impression of seeing a horse running. The
concept made its way to New Jersey where perennial inventor Thomas A.
Edison was somewhat intrigued. After inventing the electric light bulb
and generators to electrify cities, Edison created the concept of the
industrial laboratory whose sole purpose was to invent new products.
That creation eventually led to what is today the General Electric
Corporation, and along the way (about the time of WWI) GE spawned a
subsidiary holding defense patents to which it gave the patriotic name
of Radio Corporation of America, RCA.
Fifteen or twenty years after Muybridge’s discovery, Edison’s
laboratories took up the problem of the motion picture. Instead of
Muybridge’s way of twelve individual cameras with twelve individual
photographic plates, Edison used one camera and a fifty foot long strip
of film with sprocket holes on the sides of the film to move it through
the camera, and a shutter to flash images when the film was momentarily
stopped along its progress. It was then viewed by looking through a
hole in another box, a "Kintetoscope" in which the erratically moving
film was backlighted. Visitors to the Chicago World’s fair of 1893
could, for a nickel, see Edison’s assistant, Fred Ott and his comedic
specialty, a stage sneeze. The idea of movies did not seem to have
serious commercial possibilities, even when a commercial Kinetoscope
opened on Broadway in New York in April of 1894.
The last technological piece came into place in France (Lumière
brothers in Lyon) the following year when the projection of motion
pictures onto a screen allowed a theater full of people to see the same
thing at the same time -– unlike the peephole concept of the
Kinetosocope. Then in 1903 one of Edison’s cameramen produced and
directed an actual story, "The Great Train Robbery," and American
audiences reacted overwhelmingly. A vaudeville theater in Pittsburgh
was converted to show "The Great Train Robbery," and charged five cents
admission. They called it the nickelodeon, and others sprang up around
the country. The commercial possibilities were obvious to many then,
and studios to produce programming for the new medium blossomed in New
York, Philadelphia and Chicago. And Edison, holding the basic patents,
wanted his cut: a license fee for using his patented camera and a
per-foot charge for all film exhibited. Edison created The Motion
Pictures Patents Company (commonly, "The Trust") to enforce his patents
and collect royalties.
In those wild an wooly early days some people paid, some people tried
to fight the patents in court, and some people tried to cheat. Among
these, movie producer Selig of Chicago was forced in the winter of 1907
to entrain for Los Angeles to finish the exterior scenes for his "Count
of Monte Cristo" which the Chicago climate would not allow. He also
relished the distance from the subpoena servers by Edison in royalty
suits. Between 1908 and 1909 a number of other producers, equally
reluctant to pay, together with a number of bootleg operations, came to
Los Angeles for similar reasons. (They always said the came for the
climate and the sunny weather, of course.)
D. W. Griffith came in 1910 and showed the full range of
possibilities. Shortly later, east coast studios all moved west, and
Hollywood became their center of movie making activity.
It is an irony, is it not, that the industry which fled to Hollywood to
escape the royalty police is now at the forefront of "protecting
intellectual property," and more preoccupied with collecting money from
those who would enjoy earlier labors than creating new art.
--dick wagner
Brad Filippone
dropping out of the film.
A stuntwoman injured during the filming of "Cannonball Run" sued the
producers.
Brad
Skip Press
on the train from Arizona looking for locations, and the shooting of
"The Squaw Man." Otherwise, excellent!
In article <3CDCAB...@westworld.com>,
dick wagner <wag...@westworld.com> wrote:
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are
subtle and will piss on your computer.
-- Bruce Graham
All the best,
Skip Press, the Duke of URL
Hollywood and Somewhat Important News at
http://home.earthlink.net/~skippress/
Frank M. Miller
Filippone) wrote:
=The producers of "Canery Row" sued Raquel Welch (I think it was her) for
=dropping out of the film.
=
Other way round. She was signed for the film, shot a few days, and was
replaced with Debra Winger. She sued for breach of contract.
Sydney Assbasket
________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
Eric
I'm not sure whether Disney was involved too; Universal was. See
Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/464us417.htm).
The issue however was not on films in particular but on home copying.
Eric.
Brad Filippone
: In article <abj5uj$it5$8...@News.Dal.Ca>, al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
: Filippone) wrote:
: =The producers of "Canery Row" sued Raquel Welch (I think it was her) for
: =dropping out of the film.
: =
: Other way round. She was signed for the film, shot a few days, and was
: replaced with Debra Winger. She sued for breach of contract.
Yes, you're right. Sorry. It was too long ago and my mind jumbled the
event up.
Brad
Mpoconnor7
Helena" after signing a contract and taking a signing bonus IIRC.
Rip Torn sued (and won) for slander/defamation of character against Dennis
Hopper after Hopper said on the Tonight Show IIRC that Torn was cast for a
role in "Easy Rider" but director Hopper fired him after he alleged that Torn
pulled a knife on him and threatened his life.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"The probability of one person being right increases in a direct porportion to
the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
Esmond Pitt
would be King and put them out of business.
Frederica
> Sean Connery and Michael Caine sued Allied Artists over The Man who
> would be King and put them out of business.
Peggy Lee sued Disney over (I believe) residuals for her vocals in THE
LADY AND THE TRAMP.
Frederica
Frank M. Miller
Filippone) wrote:
=Frank M. Miller (NOSPAM....@mindspring.com) wrote:
=: In article <abj5uj$it5$8...@News.Dal.Ca>, al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
=: Filippone) wrote:
=
=: =The producers of "Canery Row" sued Raquel Welch (I think it was her) for
=: =dropping out of the film.
=: =
=: Other way round. She was signed for the film, shot a few days, and was
=: replaced with Debra Winger. She sued for breach of contract.
=
=Yes, you're right. Sorry. It was too long ago and my mind jumbled the
=event up.
Here's another MGM case, even older: The studio had originally cast
Elizabeth Allan, who played David Copperfield's mother, for the female
lead in "The Citadel," then replaced her at the last minute with Rosalind
Russell, whose career had been picking up of late. Allan sued for breach
of contract, so the studio also cancelled plans to star her in "Goodbye,
Mr. Chips," which led to their making Greer Garson a star.
dick wagner
Thanks for your comment about DeMille. I am not much of a Hollywood
historian, I am afraid, and did not know about a DeMille "Arizona
period," so flipped a few pages and found...
In the beginning (1913) the New York stage had fallen on hard times,
and DeMille and friend Jesse Lasky (former vaudeveillian and producer)
were nearly broke and looking for an out. They met with Lasky's
brother-in-law (a glove salesman) Samuel Goldfish (later Goldwyn). It
was DeMille's idea to go to Mexico and fight with the revolution, but
Goldfish thought they could do better to go out west and go into the
movie production business. The three scraped together all their money,
bought the rights to one production ("Squaw Man," as you say), corralled
a star (Dustin Farnum), and entrained for Flagstaff, Arizona (as you
also say).
But then, "They decided to film... in Arizona, both for the authentic
Wester setting and in hopes of escaping the notice of Edison's Motion
Picture Patents Company. On arrival, DeMille immediately rejected
Flagstaff (it was too "built up," a range war was in progress, it was
raining, and DeMille said that it didn't look like Wyoming where the
movie was set.) With his cameraman and Farnum, he went on to Los
Angeles..." So, DeMille's Arizona period was not much, I guess. (This
according to David Wallace, "Lost Hollywood.")
While I was in the neighborhood, though, I found out another thing I
never knew... "Later in his great days in Hollywood, DeMille's apparent
foot fetish, mild but nevertheless motivating, was an open secret. ...
The most famous incident involved twenty-nine-year-old Paulette Goddard,
who, when the director was casting "North West Mounted Police (1940)"
walked into his office at Paramount completely made up for the part of
the sexy female lead and slapped a bare foot on his desk. She got the
job."
From the same source I also learned that DeMille was the source of the
famous line, "You'll never work in this town again!" said to a hapless
gofer, as it happened.
--dick wagner
Hal Erickson
The Russian aristocrat responsible for the death of Rasputin sued MGM
over the characters played by John Barrymore and Diana Wynyard in
1932's RASPUTIN AND THE EMPRESS. As a result, the film was withdrawn
from theatrical distribution and the TV prints were heavily edited.
This lawsuit resulted in the famous disclaimer "Any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental", which
persists to this day.
--Hal E
Esmond Pitt
>
> Peggy Lee sued Disney over (I believe) residuals for her vocals in THE
> LADY AND THE TRAMP.
Well she wrote the score too, could have been for that.
Frederica
You're more than likely right. I recall music being involved, but wasn't
quite sure of the details.
Frederica
starcro1
"Mpoconnor7" <mpoco...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020512074635...@mb-mp.aol.com...
> Kim Basinger was sued (and lost) for deciding not to do the movie "Boxing
> Helena" after signing a contract and taking a signing bonus IIRC.
Basinger didn't sign anything. Her agent made an oral agreement on
Basinger's behalf. Basinger backed out when she learned what the project was
about. The producers sued Basinger when "Boxing Helena" failed at the
box-office, claiming that making the film with a lesser-known actress cost
the studio profits (this argument conveniently holds the producers harmless
for having made a crappy film.)
Amazingly, the trial court jury found for the plaintiff, and judged
Basinger and her production company liable to the tune of some $8 million.
This judgment waz reversed on appeal on the technicality that the
lower-court verdict was unclear on just who was responsible for making the
deal in the first place. This returned the case to square one, but Basinger
settled the matter out of court for a lower sum, just to make it go away.
So technically, Basinger didn't lose. She just paid.
starcro1
Eddie Murphy Productions, claiming that Buchwald originally developed the
story of an African prince who comes to America to find a bride. Buchwald
won, and was entitled to all profits from a film that was the
highest-grossing film comedy of its time. But Buchwald never saw a dime of
it -- "Coming to America" was produced by one of those one-shot limited
partnerships cleverly designed to make one film and put itself out of
business. The producers got rich from the film, but on paper the production
company was broke.
"Brad Filippone" <al...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:abj5uj$it5$8...@News.Dal.Ca...
Bob
starcro1 wrote:
> The late newspaper humor columnist Art Buchwald sued Paramount Pictures and
> Eddie Murphy Productions, claiming that Buchwald originally developed the
> story of an African prince who comes to America to find a bride. Buchwald
> won, and was entitled to all profits from a film that was the
> highest-grossing film comedy of its time. But Buchwald never saw a dime of
> it -- "Coming to America" was produced by one of those one-shot limited
> partnerships cleverly designed to make one film and put itself out of
> business. The producers got rich from the film, but on paper the production
> company was broke.
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Hollywood Accounting. Where did you think
the Execs at Enron got their ideas?
Bob
Tom Cervo
Reed in "They Were Expendable" sued and won damages on the basis that their
characters were defamed by said portrayals.
Go figure; if they're still around now it's their chief claim to fame, and they
probably autograph pictures of the same portrayals.
starcro1
"Tom Cervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020527104645...@mb-mr.aol.com...
The man Wayne's character was based on died recently. I don't recall his
name, but the obituary mentioned that he was also the basis of a film
character played by Montgomery Clift.
Speaking of family suing over an allegedly defamatory film portrayal of a
conveniently dead person:
The family of swordboat fishing captain Billy Tyne sued the producers of
"The Perfect Storm" for making Tyne, played by George Clooney, look like a
madman who cared more about catching fish than getting himself and his crew
out of the way of the fiercest storm anyone had ever seen. They also said
the filmmakers used a still image of real-life surviving family without
permission.
starcro1
have her permission to use a still image from her "scuba-diving in a braless
wet-t-shirt" scene in that film in an advertisement that was printed,
centerfold-style, in PLAYBOY.
I would have argued that if Bisset didn't want pictures of her nipples
to be published, she should not have allowed such pictures to be made. But a
woman who stripped topless on the street in New Orleans during Mardi Gras
recently won a suit against the producers of the "Girls Gone Wild" videos -
and she had far less of a case than Bisset did!
Bisset also sued the producers of the film "Class" over a promotional
poster -- one that showed her sitting on a settee with Rob Lowe on one side
of her, wearing a boy's school uniform and Andrew McCarthy on her other
side, wearing his school tie, and nothing else. The poster was a painting
for which the actors did not pose -- Bisset objected to the pose, and the
fact that her face was painted on the body of a model wearing a revealing
dress ( a model who was considerably more voluptuous than Bisset, BTW).
Tom Cervo
>name, but the obituary mentioned that he was also the basis of a film
>character played by Montgomery Clift.
>
I doubt it. Robert Kelly was his name. In JFK bios he turns up as a PT
commander in the Solomons, nicknamed the "Manila Gorilla". He's noted as having
sunk the largest ship ever actually (as opposed to claimed to be )sunk by US PT
boats--the USS McCawley, a troop transport attacked by mistake.
Racking my brains, but it doesn't sound like anything in Clift's body of work.
Tom Cervo
>have her permission to use a still image from her "scuba-diving in a braless
>wet-t-shirt" scene in that film in an advertisement that was printed,
>centerfold-style, in PLAYBOY.
I think they call that "The bouncer was outside, throwing them in."
Frederica
> Jacqueline Bisset sued the producers of "The Deep," claiming they didn't
> have her permission to use a still image from her "scuba-diving in a braless
> wet-t-shirt" scene in that film in an advertisement that was printed,
> centerfold-style, in PLAYBOY.
> I would have argued that if Bisset didn't want pictures of her nipples
> to be published, she should not have allowed such pictures to be made. But a
> woman who stripped topless on the street in New Orleans during Mardi Gras
> recently won a suit against the producers of the "Girls Gone Wild" videos -
> and she had far less of a case than Bisset did!
Ummmmm...why? Just because someone has taken a picture doesn't mean they
have a right to use it for profit without permission.
Frederica
starcro1
"Frederica" <missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CF53C9A...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com...
I beg to differ. I work for a newspaper, and I'd say we couldn't publish
half the photos we do, if we were required to secure permission from the
people in the pictures. News photographers don't specialize in taking
flattering images of people who want their pictures taken. Photojournalists
don't need their subjects' permission as long as they take pictures of
public behavior in public places. And the pictures they take are used to
generate profit.
EXAMPLE: A Pulitzer Prize-winning photo shows a crowd of white Boston
residents protesting busing to achieve school integration in a demonstration
at a courthouse. The angry mob suddenly attacks a black lawyer who just
happened by. The picture shows people restraining the black man, while a man
holds an American flag as he would a spear, preparing to gore the black man
with the sharpened staff.
That picture was taken a long time ago, but do you think it would ever
have been published if the man the picture catches in his act of attempted
murder, with his face contorted in blind, racist rage, had the right to say
the photographer could not profit by selling his image?
And you can't say the press are a special case; the First Amendment
applies to everyone. It applies to the anti-abortion activists who have
started training digital cameras on the doorways of abortion clinics, and
posting pictures of the women who enter on Web sites that basically invite
extremists to hunt the women down as murderers. I wouldn't recognize these
nuts as journalists, but the law does.
Neither the original text of the U.S. Constitution, nor any of its
amendments, makes any explicit mention or guarantee of an individual's right
to privacy. Whatever expectation of privacy we have has been the result of
court rulings over the last 37 years. And the courts have recognized that
certain classes of individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
One class is public figures -- they gave up their right to privacy when they
chose to live public lives. Another class is the notorious -- they lose
their right to expect privacy when they choose to ignore or defy society's
rules. Current legal wisdom is that the notorious cannot be defamed because
they have no good name for anyone else to ruin.
I'd say someone who voluntarily strips naked in the middle of the street
during a huge public celebration qualifies as a public figure, a notorious
person or both, and is giving tacit permission for anyone with a camera to
do with her what they will.
And I'd wager that most judges in places other than Louisiana would
agree.
Frederica
> > Ummmmm...why? Just because someone has taken a picture doesn't mean
> they
> > have a right to use it for profit without permission.
> >
> > Frederica
(snip lengthy and interesting answer)
Thank you for the answer; I have no doubt you are absolutely correct regarding
news and journalism. But it doesn't seem to me that either of these cases
have anything to do with journalistic freedom. Jacqueline Bisset was
photographed as an actress in a role. She and the production company entered
into a contract that specified how the film would be used. She decided that
the production company had not adhered to the terms of the contract, used her
image in a non-contractual way, and she sued. Apparently the courts agreed.
In the other case, I perceive a difference between photographing a person for a
news broadcast and then someone not connected with the news broadcast turning
around and selling the pictures.
I think what I'm trying to say is that I see a property ownership issue and you
see a first amendment issue. I would compare it to someone saying "if those
Disney folks didn't want me to use Snow White's image, why did they make the
movie?" The Disney people have been begging to differ quite successfully for
many years.
About a year ago I saw an interview with Alyssa Milano, who had apparently sued
to get some people to remove nude photos of her from the web. The journalist
seemed to feel that since she had posed for the photos originally, she had then
lost any rights over them. The subtext of his questions was "you've crossed a
moral line, and now you must be punished." Piffle. It is her body to sell in
whatever manner she sees fit, and any profits that are made off of said body
should be made by her. If the web site had used a picture of Shaq throwing a
free shot, they would have been sued by both Shaq and the Lakers, and no one
would have seriously questioned Shaq's right to control how his image was used
and his right to make a profit from it.
You will know far more about the legalities than I do, and I'd be interested to
hear your views on it. What triggered my initial irritation (and what has been
triggering it for quite some time, so don't take it personally) was the
unstated but easily discernable viewpoint that a women's breasts, or any other
part of her body, are publicly owned. Property we may indeed be--heaven knows,
most legal systems still define us as chattel in all but name. The hollering
starts when a woman stands up and claims sole ownership of said property, and
all rights pertaining thereto. The issue seems pretty black and white to me,
but it isn't reflected in the legal system or in public opinion. I suspect
that there will be many more lawsuits of a similar nature, since public opinion
changes slowly and begrudgingly.
Frederica
starcro1
of why I thought the plaintiff in the "Girls Gone Wild" lawsuit had less of
a case than Jacqueline Bisset did in suing the producers of "The Deep" and
"Class." Bisset did have somewhat of a case. They were cases that need not
have had to result in litigation if Bisset and those producers had been more
careful to draft contracts that spelled out in specific terms what could and
could not be done with the film's images.
Still, I think Bisset was supremely silly to think that those wet-
t-shirt footage would never be distributed as stills, or that a film in
which she plays a married woman who seduces her teen-age son's roommate in a
glass elevator in the atrium of a Hyatt hotel in downtown Chicago might not
be a high-class production.
"Frederica" <missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CF64D7D...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com...
Different issue entirely. You're talking from the perspective of someone who
didn't create the images. Bisset and the "Girls Gone Wild" plaintiff were
trying to restrain the lawful owners of those images from using them as they
saw fit.
> About a year ago I saw an interview with Alyssa Milano, who had apparently
sued
> to get some people to remove nude photos of her from the web. The
journalist
> seemed to feel that since she had posed for the photos originally, she had
then
> lost any rights over them. The subtext of his questions was "you've
crossed a
> moral line, and now you must be punished." Piffle. It is her body to
sell in
> whatever manner she sees fit, and any profits that are made off of said
body
> should be made by her. If the web site had used a picture of Shaq
throwing a
> free shot, they would have been sued by both Shaq and the Lakers, and no
one
> would have seriously questioned Shaq's right to control how his image was
used
> and his right to make a profit from it.
>
The Alyssa Milano case had to do with the exploitation of Milano's images by
people who had no right to them, i.e., copyright infringement. It's easy to
point, click a mouse and posess a digital image from a Web site, then
reproduce it on a new Web site. It's so easy that people seldom consider the
fact that it constitutes theft of someone else's property, in this case,
intellectual property. Milano obviously has no problem with posing nude for
profit. Like any businesswoman, she wants to keep her products out of the
hands of those who don't pay for them.
> You will know far more about the legalities than I do, and I'd be
interested to
> hear your views on it. What triggered my initial irritation (and what has
been
> triggering it for quite some time, so don't take it personally) was the
> unstated but easily discernable viewpoint that a women's breasts, or any
other
> part of her body, are publicly owned. Property we may indeed be--heaven
knows,
> most legal systems still define us as chattel in all but name. The
hollering
> starts when a woman stands up and claims sole ownership of said property,
and
> all rights pertaining thereto. The issue seems pretty black and white to
me,
> but it isn't reflected in the legal system or in public opinion. I
suspect
> that there will be many more lawsuits of a similar nature, since public
opinion
> changes slowly and begrudgingly.
>
> Frederica
>
I don't think a woman's breasts are public property. I do think that any
person's privacy must be guarded, because the current legal wisdom is that
once you give your privacy away, you can never get it back.
In that sense, Bisset and the "Girls Gone Wild" plaintiff did lose
ownership of their breasts - not because some male chauvinist stole them,
but because they chose to give them away. It doesn't mean anyone can walk up
and physically grab the women, but it does mean that the nude images that
already exist are out of their control. If they don't like the situation,
they must concede that it is the result of choices they freely made. I
believe in equal rights. I also believe in equal repsonsibility to behave
sensibly, and equal obligation to live with the consequences of one's
choices.
>
>
>
>
Frederica
> Still, I think Bisset was supremely silly to think that those wet-
> t-shirt footage would never be distributed as stills, or that a film in
> which she plays a married woman who seduces her teen-age son's roommate in a
> glass elevator in the atrium of a Hyatt hotel in downtown Chicago might not
> be a high-class production.
It may be silly. But perhaps we can also say that the production company was
also silly in assuming they had a right to use the image without clearing it
with Bisset first.
> Different issue entirely. You're talking from the perspective of someone who
> didn't create the images. Bisset and the "Girls Gone Wild" plaintiff were
> trying to restrain the lawful owners of those images from using them as they
> saw fit.
And here's where we have the problem. In both of these cases, the law
considers the photographer the owner of the property. I don't. I see this as
theft, pure and simple.
>
> The Alyssa Milano case had to do with the exploitation of Milano's images by
> people who had no right to them, i.e., copyright infringement. It's easy to
> point, click a mouse and posess a digital image from a Web site, then
> reproduce it on a new Web site. It's so easy that people seldom consider the
> fact that it constitutes theft of someone else's property, in this case,
> intellectual property. Milano obviously has no problem with posing nude for
> profit. Like any businesswoman, she wants to keep her products out of the
> hands of those who don't pay for them.
Wasn't Bisset's case the same?
> I don't think a woman's breasts are public property. I do think that any
> person's privacy must be guarded, because the current legal wisdom is that
> once you give your privacy away, you can never get it back.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't consider this legal wisdom. As far as
I'm concerned, you can too get it back if you make it unpleasant, litigious,
and unprofitable enough. I hope to see a lot more of this type of lawsuit.
Big, expensive, ugly lawsuits. You go, girls.
>
> In that sense, Bisset and the "Girls Gone Wild" plaintiff did lose
> ownership of their breasts - not because some male chauvinist stole them,
> but because they chose to give them away. It doesn't mean anyone can walk up
> and physically grab the women, but it does mean that the nude images that
> already exist are out of their control. If they don't like the situation,
> they must concede that it is the result of choices they freely made. I
> believe in equal rights. I also believe in equal repsonsibility to behave
> sensibly, and equal obligation to live with the consequences of one's
> choices.
I didn't say anything about a male chauvinist, for all I know the people
involved could have been female. And the choice is theirs to make, freely.
One thing the law does do is enshrine the right to behave foolishly. If I take
a walk in a dangerous area of town at night dripping with diamonds, I can
probably expect to be robbed. That does not in any way diminish the
culpability of the robber, nor does he have a right to my diamonds because I'm
behaving foolishly. I perceive this as exactly the same situation.
But gosh, thanks for the lecture! Behave sensibly, wow, who'd a thunk it!
And here I am, out without my burqa again, just BEGGING to be attacked.
Frederica
starcro1
"Frederica" <missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote in message
> starcro1 wrote:
>
> > Still, I think Bisset was supremely silly to think that those wet-
> > t-shirt footage would never be distributed as stills, or that a film in
> > which she plays a married woman who seduces her teen-age son's roommate
in a
> > glass elevator in the atrium of a Hyatt hotel in downtown Chicago might
not
> > be a high-class production.
>
> It may be silly. But perhaps we can also say that the production company
was
> also silly in assuming they had a right to use the image without clearing
it
> with Bisset first.
>
Bisset signed a contract in which she agreed to have her pictures taken,
with the understanding that the images would be used in a commercial
enterprise. She also understood that she would be expected to participate in
the marketing effort after the film was completed. Nothing these production
companies did was out of the ordinary, or out of character with the
performances she gave. Not every star gets a micromanagement clause in her
contract, empowering her to veto every aspect of the production. It was a
huge matter of "This is what we do in this business. What did you expect of
us?"
>
> > Different issue entirely. You're talking from the perspective of someone
who
> > didn't create the images. Bisset and the "Girls Gone Wild" plaintiff
were
> > trying to restrain the lawful owners of those images from using them as
they
> > saw fit.
>
> And here's where we have the problem. In both of these cases, the law
> considers the photographer the owner of the property. I don't. I see
this as
> theft, pure and simple.
>
How on earth does it constitute theft? An actress or model signs a contract,
and accepts payment for her image to be used for commercial purposes.
Whether it's Leonardo da Vinci with a brush and oil paints or a guy with a
Polaroid camera, the person or company that creates the images owns them.
The model might own the images if *she* paid the artist or photographer, but
that isn't the case here.
> >
> > The Alyssa Milano case had to do with the exploitation of Milano's
images by
> > people who had no right to them, i.e., copyright infringement. It's easy
to
> > point, click a mouse and posess a digital image from a Web site, then
> > reproduce it on a new Web site. It's so easy that people seldom consider
the
> > fact that it constitutes theft of someone else's property, in this case,
> > intellectual property. Milano obviously has no problem with posing nude
for
> > profit. Like any businesswoman, she wants to keep her products out of
the
> > hands of those who don't pay for them.
>
> Wasn't Bisset's case the same?
>
No. Bisset did not commission the creation of the images for her own
purposes, i.e., she was not the producer. By signing a contract, she in
essence sold her image and the rights to exploit them to the production
company. If she wanted more control over how the images should be used, she
should have negotiated that control when the contract was drawn up.
Otherwise, it's up to the production company to decide how the images they
paid to create should be used.
> > I don't think a woman's breasts are public property. I do think that any
> > person's privacy must be guarded, because the current legal wisdom is
that
> > once you give your privacy away, you can never get it back.
>
> Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't consider this legal wisdom. As far
as
> I'm concerned, you can too get it back if you make it unpleasant,
litigious,
> and unprofitable enough. I hope to see a lot more of this type of
lawsuit.
> Big, expensive, ugly lawsuits. You go, girls.
>
That's called making yourself a nuisance, screaming and yelling until
someone pays you to go away. Sometimes it works. But that doesn't mean the
nuisance has a righteous case.
This is not a crime situation. This is making a bad business decision when
you should know better, then expecting to back out of it when the person you
paint as the bad guy is right. This is using the rhetoric of the women's
movement to shield you from the consequences of your own irresponsibility.
Anthony
Frederica
(snippity do-dah)
>
> This is not a crime situation. This is making a bad business decision when
> you should know better, then expecting to back out of it when the person you
> paint as the bad guy is right. This is using the rhetoric of the women's
> movement to shield you from the consequences of your own irresponsibility.
>
> Anthony
Oh what a load of crap. But you know what? I have no time for this. We'll
just agree to disagree, although I suspect you probably will be much happier
hearing "Gosh! You win!!" Whatever. I have not changed my mind.
Frederica
starcro1
"Frederica" <missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote in message
Friendly advice: If you don't have time to argue with a load of crap, just
don't reply. You don't owe me an explanation, and "Let's agree to disagree"
comes off as just an obstinate way to concede an argument.