Media Wonk

Link This | Email this | Comments (0)

Grand Old Pirates - July 30, 2008

What would a John McCain administration mean for intellectual property and related rights? Nothing good from the looks of the Republican's campaign. Last week, the campaign had to yank a fund-raising video mocking Barack Obama from its YouTube channel after Warner Bros. Records pointed out that McCain had failed to license either of the two Frankie Valli tunes used in the clip. And in a new ad released today, the McCain campaign uses images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to try to associate Obama, apparently, with young, oversexed white girls (nothing divisive about that tactic). Although the laws regarding the unauthorized use of a person's image or likeness in advertising vary from state to state, based on its track record it's a fair bet that the campaign didn't bother with seeking permission.

Here's what the Library of Congress says about the use of a celebrity's image:

While it is true that famous or public figures who seek recognition have thereby surrendered some privacy, they may have the right to control the commercial use of their image (likeness, voice, signature, etc.). This principle recognizes that a celebrity's image can be an asset in trade.

Again, users of materials are responsible for clearing any privacy or publicity rights associated with the use of materials appearing on this website. Such clearances are separate and in addition to copyright clearances.

Of course, there are some who would argue that the Frankie Valli clip was a "transformative" mash-up that might qualify as fair use, but most of the folks I know who might say that probably aren't planning to vote for John McCain. The fact that the McCain campaign used the clip for fund-raising purposes also probably blows the non-commercial use angle.

Whatever happened to conservatives' respect for private property rights?

[Digital Copyright]  [DIY]  [E-Content]  [Legal]  [Regulation & Legislation]   LEAVE A COMMENT