Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

This use sounds a lot like the kind of use that in the U.S. is
considered news reportage.  There are doctrines within copyright,
trademark, and right of publicity that try to protect accurate,
illustrative uses, and this one-sentence description makes it sound
pretty good.  The image doesn't "take" more than it needs to illustrate
what a sponsor is, by taking Tiger's back you reduce the competition
with the commercial exploitation of his image, the use is educational
and informative, and everything about the use is truthful.

Obviously in light of what I said last time, caution is warranted,
lawyers should be consulted if you want to be sure, and a lot depends on
what form that the publisher gives you to sign says.  But I think you
have less to worry about from Nike than from Tiger, and if this is truly
the situation, you have comparatively little to worry about from either.

James

Not speaking as a lawyer, and I really will get back to work now.

Stefanie Calkins wrote:
> Thank you very much for the response. They want to use the photo of
> Tiger as an explanation of what a sponsor is. (he has his back to the
> camera in his black clothes, displaying Nike on the back of his hat).
> This is where I was curious if not only do you need his permissions, but
> when logos of such companies are displayed on clothing, does this open
> yet another door for legal issues?
> 
> */James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>/* wrote:
> 
>     Stefanie Calkins wrote:
>     > I took a photo recently of Tiger Woods. A book publishing company
>     would
>     > like to use it in a children's encyclopedia. Do I need to get his
>     > permission to allow his photo to be used? Thx
> 
>     Eldrick "Tiger" Woods is fairly litigious over his claims to control his
>     right of publicity. See ETW Corp. v. Jireh, 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir.
>     2003), in which the Sixth Circuit took forty-five pages to dismiss his
>     trademark, right of publicity, false advertising, unfair competition,
>     and deceptive trade practices claims against an artist who sold copies
>     of a painting of Woods.
> 
>     I don't have time at the moment to get to get into the pros and cons of
>     asking permission, but this seemed like a fairly important data point
>     for the discussion.
> 
>     James
>     _______________________________________________
>     cc-licenses mailing list
>     cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Catch up on fall's hot new shows
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/tv/mail/tagline/falltv/evt=47093/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
>> on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses