[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: right of publicity, or why no-advertising clauses are not necessary

Branden Robinson wrote:
> A) Can folks in other countries help us find out if publicity rights
>    are recognized there?

IANAL, and the few areas about the law that I do have a more than
average knowledge about do not include this part; however, ISTR having
heard something about it not being legal over here for someone to take
your picture and publish it without your permission.

Also, if someone ever misrepresents you or your opinions, in Belgium you
have what is called the "Right to answer", which means that you can
write up a reply to whatever was published, send it to the publisher and
demand that they publish it. They then either have to publish it as is,
or send you an edited version for approval and publish that if you
agree; but they cannot refuse it.

A good and recent example where this right was executed was in an
article in a local newspaper about how the economy isn't going too well
currently and that many small companies were having troubles, featuring
a picture of some industrial area with some logos of some small
companies. For obvious reasons, those companies weren't really happy to
be associated with an article about bad economy and companies in
trouble, so they executed their right to answer, and the newspaper
published an explanation (that it was just a random picture, that the
article didn't apply to the companies in question).

All this is unconnected to copyright, though.

>    Does any jurisdiction in the world automatically grant copyright
>    licensees permission to use the copyright holder's name or likeness
>    in advertising or publicity?

Not that I know of; but again, IANAL.

     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
 -- with thanks to fortune

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: