What rights does a company need to use someone's image?

[Topnotchsy]

Noticed this card in 2011 Topps American Pie and was surprised that Topps was able to use it. I am 99.99% sure that they did not get permission from Watterson (author of Calvin and Hobbes) because he does not license anything. Can the company use his image on the card (and the name of his comic strip) without a license? (Or by some miracle did they get him to agree to a license?)

edit: this is actually the only known picture of Watterson on the internet. It's a pretty well known picture amongst C&H fans for that reason...)

 

[Super Mario]

Maybe it's public domain?

 

[ballcardzdotcom]

Public domain, in theory, would not allow you to take the image and resell it for a profit.

 

[Topnotchsy]

Maybe it's public domain?

Could be, I'm really not sure how those things work. I was just surprised as basically nothing licensed of Calvin and Hobbes (outside of the books and a very small number of exceptions) or Watterson exists.

 

[cgilmo]

I'm not a lawyer, but fair use would probably apply although it needs to be tested by a court system.

It's an educational set imo, and fair use says you can use it in this manner (i think)

 

[Card Magnet]

Wouldn't the person who took this picture or employer of the photographer own the photo, and thus could sell a license to use it, even without Waterson's permission?

 

[hofmichael]

I believe Buzz Aldrin has a lawsuit pending(I am not sure if it has been settled) against Topps for using his likeness on a card.I believe Topps' defense was that the card was educational.

 

[hive17]

This isn't going to turn into that gigantic bitch fest that the whole Buzz Aldrin thread started, is it? I still say that someone making a profit off of my image, without my consent, isn't cool. And the cop-out is calling my profitteering "educational" so I can claim fair use. But Chris may be right in the court's opinion.

 

[JoshHamilton]

It's an educational set imo, and fair use says you can use it in this manner (i think)

This. Same reasoning Topps used in their Aldrin defense

Chicken S--- move by Topps. They know damn well it's not an educational product. They're just trying to use people's images without compensating them

 

[trauty]

 

[JoshHamilton]

I would love to hear someone defend Topps on this

They're releasing a historical pop culture set and using the "educational" defense. I'd like to see them release a historical baseball legends set and use the "educational" defense.

They'd get smoked by CMG, MLBP, etc in court

 

[Card Magnet]

Wouldn't all sports cards be educational? They give the background of a player, highlight important moments in culture and history, and have a wealth of statistical information.

I'm sure Topps would lead a crusade against any company who featured one of their exclusive guys on a card, especially given their history of legal action against other companies (Leaf, Upper Deck).

All corporations have some dirt and grime to them, but Topps is the grimiest in the card hobby. That said, they still get my money when they put out a good product.

 

[JoshHamilton]

Wouldn't all sports cards be educational? They give the background of a player, highlight important moments in culture and history, and have a wealth of statistical information.

I'm frankly surprised a company hasn't released an unlicensed set and used that as a legal defense

I vaguely remember a caricature set released in '90 or '91 that failed at using a similar defense. I think. They lost

 

[zach]

Wouldn't the person who took this picture or employer of the photographer own the photo, and thus could sell a license to use it, even without Waterson's permission?

Possibly. However, I know when I have sold photos through Shutter Stock they insist on a signed release if the photo contains/features a model or person. I don't know if the same would apply here.

 

[bouwob]

Wouldn't all sports cards be educational? They give the background of a player, highlight important moments in culture and history, and have a wealth of statistical information.

I'm sure Topps would lead a crusade against any company who featured one of their exclusive guys on a card, especially given their history of legal action against other companies (Leaf, Upper Deck).

All corporations have some dirt and grime to them, but Topps is the grimiest in the card hobby. That said, they still get my money when they put out a good product.

Even the game used stuff. They are educational in that you have just received a game used relic. Now if they really wanted to be educational, they would put out a card with the definition of relic.

 

[Topnotchsy]

Had never seen those pictures before. Very cool!