Legal Question: Celebrity Impression in Marketing Video's

msharron

msharron

This is going to hurt
Apr 14, 2012
639
18
0
Brighton
Real quick question for you all.
I came up an idea/wordflow to make entertaining videos which is essentially as follows.

Stackcash = ScriptWriter
Fiverr.com = Voice Overs
Go-Animate = Software
PH VA = Puts everything together.

I'm using celebrity impressions. Just wondering if anyone is aware of any legal issues with this plan.

Example of video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWdMiJWW1Fw
 


Best to just go on Avvo and ask a lawyer there, you will have to check UK and USA laws too probably.

I think if it's clearly satire to the user they cannot do much - not a lawyer here though.
 
Thanks for the advice. Ill get some legal council.

Kevin Smith's latest animated adventure has a bad guy dressed as a giant penis voiced by Ralph Garman doing an Arnie impression.
 
f7a5e5acfc5e88de76b775a8866a1fb2fcf1b64ba05c28da6be3d45e9a8cf1c3.jpg
 
Great flow/idea but as a case of point I'd be very fucking careful about anything that involves celebrities. It's a red flag to a bull. Especially if people start talking virally about it, which is more than likely to happen if that celebrity just happens to be just a tiny bit popular.

^^That's where the danger is, your own "success" can literally be your downfall.

You get teams of Lawyers just sat around waiting for a pull. That's all they do, is scour the interwebz for violations/infringes/lawsuits.

Tread carefully and possibly abandon that line of thought RE: celebrities.

Just reading your post, you'll notice I've thanked it, cos you gave me a shit ton of ideas that don't involve celebrities.
 
cheshire said:
What about parody law?
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking around because I've been in some of these hazy areas.

I know my video friends have used Arnold specifically in their videos with impersonations - 100k+ views - and they're fine. They do a lot of stuff similar too.

Again not real legal advice because I'm not a lawyer though.
 
Josss said:
Great flow/idea but as a case of point I'd be very fucking careful about anything that involves celebrities. It's a red flag to a bull. Especially if people start talking virally about it, which is more than likely to happen if that celebrity just happens to be just a tiny bit popular.

^^That's where the danger is, your own "success" can literally be your downfall.

You get teams of Lawyers just sat around waiting for a pull. That's all they do, is scour the interwebz for violations/infringes/lawsuits.

Tread carefully and possibly abandon that line of thought RE: celebrities.

Just reading your post, you'll notice I've thanked it, cos you gave me a shit ton of ideas that don't involve celebrities.
Click to expand...

I'd had this on my whiteboard for over a year. For anyone interested. Go-Animate is pure gold. Combine it with a solid script/humour and its a awesome.

Who's up for CEOSam vs CCarter
 
Releases and Free Speech

You can use a person’s name or image for commercial purposes without permission if the commercial use qualifies as free speech. Generally, this occurs when the use is categorized as a parody. (For more information on trademark parodies see Chapter 10. For more information on copyright parodies, see Chapter 9).

For example, a company sold trading cards featuring caricatures of major league baseball players. Text on the cards ridiculing player salaries and egos included a statement: “Cardtoons baseball is a parody and is NOT licensed by Major League Baseball Properties or Major League Baseball Players Association.” A federal court permitted the use of player’s names and caricatured images as free speech. (Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Assn., 838 F. Supp. 1501 (N.D. Okla. 1993).)

However, individuals wary of litigation should weigh the consequences and costs of a lawsuit before claiming a free speech right to use an individual’s name or image.
 
It doesn't matter.

If you can't afford to defend it, you'll get squashed, legal or not.
 
UK Law:

Under UK law, there is no codified regime of image or personality rights which means that when individuals wish to protect proprietary rights or “brands” and prevent unauthorised use of names, likeness or other characteristics.

Non-broadcast advertising, promotion and direct marketing (including websites and social media sites): marketers are urged to seek permission before referring to a person with a public profile.

The only real recourse appears to be case law regarding defamation of character. What must be established is that there is a misrepresentation or damage to an individuals public image which can be a difficult and expensive hurdle for claimants to overcome.
 
SkyFire said:
It doesn't matter.

If you can't afford to defend it, you'll get squashed, legal or not.
Click to expand...

It seems the worst they can do to you in the UK is have the advert removed or requested payment for an endorsement of a product.

Either way I'm with you 100% and I'm not up for taking the risk - I've already got some new ideas/angles I'm toying with. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back