CELEBRITY LICENSING 名人授權 In the licensing business, celebrity licensing refers to granting the right to a third party to use the name, image, brand, or likeness of a celebrity. By acquiring these rights under license, the third party can utilize them in the promotion or sale of their goods or services.  於授權實務,名人之授權指,授權第三人得利用其姓名、圖像、品牌或樣貌。藉由授權,第三人可於促銷或銷售其產品或服務下,利用上開標的。 A celebrity who licenses intellectual property (IP) related to their image, name, or likeness is allowing a third party (usually a group or business) to use those assets for the benefit of the third party’s business interests. In exchange for granting the licensing rights, the celebrity receives financial compensation, typically in the form of royalties. Depending upon the nature of the licensing contract, there may be limitations to what the third party can do with the intellectual property of the celebrity. They may only be able to utilize the property in certain markets, or for a specific period of time. In addition, there may be terms limiting the types of services or goods in connection with which the celebrity’s IP can be used. 名人授與有關其圖像、姓名、樣貌等智慧財產權與第三人時,該人可為其商業利益而利用之。名人可因上開權利之授與而取得酬償,通常以取得權利金方式作為授權之對價。基於授權契約之內容,對第三人得利用上開智慧財產權,得加以限制。諸如限制第三人只能在特定市場或特定期間利用上開智慧財產權。此外,還可限制上開智慧財產權只能用於某類型之服務或商品。 ※尊重著作權;違法利用,本人必究。  


She Belongs to the Public: Court Rules that Marilyn Monroe Estate has no Rights of Publicity Background:  For the past 50 years—since Monroe’s death in August 1962—Monroe’s Estate (and its successor, Monroe, LLC) has been asserting that it inherited Monroe’s right of publicity, claiming to own Monroe’s images, voice, likeness and biographical information—rights that were worth $27 million in 2011. 背景:自從瑪麗蓮夢露1962死亡至今已50年,其繼承人夢露有限責任公司持續主張其擁有瑪麗蓮夢露的名氣權,包括圖像、聲音、樣貌和傳記資料,這些在2011年總價值2千7百萬美元。 New York or California? 該繼承人主張其擁有瑪麗蓮夢露知名氣權,準據法究竟係依紐約州法抑或是加州法? Rights of publicity vary from state to state: though most states recognize the right during a person’s lifetime, only a few states extend those protections after death.  美國各州對知名度之保護,採取不同的保護強度,雖然大多數的州承認人於其生存其間可主張知名度,僅有少不分的州承認死後名人權。Though in California individuals have a posthumous publicity right, which can be bequeathed, in New York, the right of publicity is extinguished at death.  在加州承認死後名人權,有可被繼承人所繼承,但在紐約知名度在人死後即消滅。Monroe died at a house she owned in Brentwood, California, though she also maintained her prior residence in New York City.  瑪麗蓮夢露於其加州Brentwood自宅內死亡,雖然其住所設在紐約Thus, the issue before the court was clear: if Monroe was a California resident at her death, the Monroe Estate would have inherited control of her name and likeness; if she was a New York resident, those rights would have expired when Monroe died.所以,於訴訟時爭點非常明確,假如瑪麗蓮夢露死時,是加州居民,其繼承人人可繼承並得支配其姓名與樣貌,假使她是紐約居民,上開權利於其死亡時即消滅。(待續)


Just two months after the end of her second copyright infringement lawsuit, fashion model Jelena Noura “Gigi” Hadid was sued for a third time, on September 13, for copyright infringement for posting paparazzi photos to her social media accounts without the license or permission of the photographer. Other celebrities, including Jennifer Lopez, Victoria Beckham and, most recently, Justin Bieber, have made news for the same situation. This trend falls into an interesting intersection of two significant tenets of law: a celebrity’s right of publicity in their own image and a photographer’s right to copyright their artistic work. 就在Jelena Noura “Gigi” Hadid 名模第二樁侵害著作權訴訟終結二個月後,其又以未經拍攝者之授權或同意將拍攝者所拍之照片布告在其社群網頁上而被訴。其他諸如Jennifer Lopez 、Victoria Beckham和最近Justin Bieber亦同樣以相同之情形而躍上新聞版面。此彰顯出兩個值得注目的法律原則落入一個有趣交錯的走勢:名人就其樣貌之知名度與拍攝者就其所攝攝影著作之著作權,兩者之交互作用及何者優先受到保護,而排除他者。 以上中文譯文,為本人所譯;請尊重著作權,違法利用,本人必究。


New York-based O’Neil asserts that Hadid infringed his exclusive rights as the copyright holder of the photo “by reproducing and publicly displaying [it] on her Instagram story,” despite the fact that she “is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the photograph.” In doing so, O’Neil claims that the 24-year old supermodel ran afoul of his exclusive right to display the image, and distribute copies of it to the public by sale or another form of transfer, such as licensing, among other things. As a result, she should be forced to pay “statutory damages up to $150,000 per work infringed for [her] willful infringement of the photograph,” he argues. 位在紐約的O’Neil 主張哈蒂的行為侵害其為攝影著作之著作人專有重製及公開展示之著作財產權。事實是她未取得授權去重製、公開展示、散布或利用該照片。 O’Neil起訴主張這位24歲的超模,不管是藉由銷售或是另外諸如授權的方式去移轉,侵害其公開展示及散布之排他權。因此,她須就其惡意侵害之每一張照片給付最高至15萬元之法定賠償金。


Just two months after prevailing in a copyright infringement lawsuit in connection with a photo she posted of herself on her Instagram account, Gigi Hadid has been named in a new lawsuit – this time for the “unauthorized reproduction and public display of a copyrighted photograph of English singer and songwriter Zayn Malik.” According to the copyright suit filed by professional photographer Robert O’Neil in a New York federal court on Friday, Hadid added a photo of former boyfriend Malik to her Instagram story in June 2018. The problem? She did not have O’Neil’s permission to do so. 名模吉吉哈蒂把自己的照片po在自己的instagram帳號涉及侵害著作權訴訟勝訴兩個月後,又在另一新訴訟中,列名為被告。所涉及之侵權情事為,非經授權重製及公開展示其與一位英國歌手及作曲人Zayn Malik同框有著作權之照片。根據職業攝影師Robert O’Neil 星期五於紐約聯邦法院提起侵害著作權之訴訟,哈蒂在2018年將含有其前男友Zayn Malik照片加入其instagram頁面裏。問題是?其並未獲得O’Neil’的同意。(待續)