Celebrity Look-a-Likes for 3D figures Part 2

shadowz_2946926

nonesuch00 said:

shadowz said:

freni-kyn said:

I've wondered for a while now how vendors get away with creating look-a-like models.  Do they have to get permission from the celebrity figure?  Please know this is not a criticism, just wondering if anyone knows the legalities for this.  Who knows, there may be a day when I want to make a look-alike to sell.

I think it works as long as you don't use their real identity/names. I'm not sure of all the legal bounds to that as per DAZ3D or Renderosity, but looks like you can sell using a different name. 

But if you can get the person's consent it would always be great isn't it. Reby Sky for example was created with her consent as I understand. Which is why her real identity is also used by the artist.

I don't think that's true. Someone can do a portrait in traditional media of anyone they please & use the real name of the person portrayed and sell it.  

https://www.quora.com/Did-Andy-Warhol-need-Marilyn-Monroe’s-or-Campbell-Soup’s-permission-to-use-their-likenesses-in-his-iconic-paintings

As one example where this question gets asked again and again.

So unless you use create the textures directly from the multiplicity of different photos from different photographers digitally you are not going to infringe. And if you can pose a digital model and it look just like that person well that was the point of the digital model just like that is the case with many oil portraits.
 

Thanks  for all that. it was very helpful.  And I sincerly apologise if my answer may have diverted wrongly to anyone. I wasn't asnwering on behalf of the general art industry & commercial works.  My view was solely based on how its been going on on this specific subject and only a part of it which I understood as a common factor. Should have been more clear & solid on my answer 

 

Cheers

 

 

shadowz_2946926

@outrider42 

That was very insightful and helpful. I'm still a newbie as a vendor artist with just one product available in the market. I've done a fair share of research before going into this 3D community market, though not enough. 

I've always had a bit of hesitancy in selling look-alikes of actual people or copyrighted fictional characters. You've just proved my points of concerns in one whole post.

Even merchant resources has a clear clarification of how it should be used for your own products. But that also has a slippery grey area if you're not doing it right. One thing really hit me a lot from all that. The lawsuit filed by Gwen Stefani - her reason. I think that's also something to really think about when you're jumping into this market.
I've still so many questions, but let me just conclude for now. 

Thanks a lot for your explanations.

nonesuch00

outrider42 said:

nonesuch00 said:

shadowz said:

freni-kyn said:

I've wondered for a while now how vendors get away with creating look-a-like models.  Do they have to get permission from the celebrity figure?  Please know this is not a criticism, just wondering if anyone knows the legalities for this.  Who knows, there may be a day when I want to make a look-alike to sell.

I think it works as long as you don't use their real identity/names. I'm not sure of all the legal bounds to that as per DAZ3D or Renderosity, but looks like you can sell using a different name. 

But if you can get the person's consent it would always be great isn't it. Reby Sky for example was created with her consent as I understand. Which is why her real identity is also used by the artist.

I don't think that's true. Someone can do a portrait in traditional media of anyone they please & use the real name of the person portrayed and sell it.  

https://www.quora.com/Did-Andy-Warhol-need-Marilyn-Monroe’s-or-Campbell-Soup’s-permission-to-use-their-likenesses-in-his-iconic-paintings

As one example where this question gets asked again and again.

So unless you use create the textures directly from the multiplicity of different photos from different photographers digitally you are not going to infringe. And if you can pose a digital model and it look just like that person well that was the point of the digital model just like that is the case with many oil portraits.

If only it was that simple. It is called the "Right to Publicity".

Monroe could not sue Warhol because she was dead. Plus the state of California did not have any right of publicity after death at that time (it has since changed.) The state later ruled that her rights ended when she died. So that is also why you see Monroe show up in so many places today...her likeness is not protected. But that was also a different time, people were not as consumed with this right of publicity as they are today. I truly believe if Warhol was getting started today, and he made a print of somebody like Lindsay Lohan, he would be sued without mercy. Why did I say Lohan, read on.

These rights vary greatly from state to state in America. That is also why when lawsuits happen, they are made in certain states which might favor the plaintiff. This has happened numerous times in the video game world. Two well known cases involve Lindsay Lohan and Manuel Noriega (yes, the former dictator of Panama.) Lohan sued TakeTwo Interactive, the owner of the studio that makes Grand Theft Auto, for using her likeness in GTA5. The character she claimed was based on her was also a famous actress, so the similarities were more than just CG skin deep. Noriega sued Activsion who owns the Call of Duty series for using his likeness in Black Ops 2. In that game, there is no question that the character is Noriega it is openly stated in the game as being him. The dispute is more about slander, as the lawsuit claimed that CoD Noriega is a "kidnapper, murderer and enemy of the state". Ironic, I know.

Both lawsuits were dismissed.

In another case, various NCAA football athletes sued Electronic Arts for using their likeness in numerous college football games. What is noteworthy here is that these depictions in the game were never named. Players were only given their jersey number, and the character portrait of the athlete was highly generic (as in, they reused the same face for many different players.) The only way to tell who was who was by their skin color, position, and their relative ability. For example, the star quarterback for Florida who could run as good as any running back was almost certainly Tim Tebow (though Tebow was not involved in any lawsuit, that is just an example.)

This lawsuit was eventually settled out of court, and EA paid $40 or 60 million, which was spread out among almost 25,000 players who are eligible. It is possible EA could have fought this all the way through, but they chose not to.

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/ea-sports-settles-with-college-athletes-for--60-million-203005134.html

This would lead to the death of the NCAA Football game series. The games were extremely popular and profitable, but the legal uncertainty around the athletes lead EA to kill the series. It is complicated by the NCAA itself, which refuses to allow athletes to accept any form of payment or they lose eligibility. So EA cannot pay the athletes even if they want to, but you have athletes suing for compensation...so yeah.

One interesting case involves Gwen Stefani vs Activision's Rock Band. Stefani and her former band No Doubt is included in the game along with some of their songs. The problem is that you could unlock Stefani's avatar and use her to sing other song by other bands. This is something that Stefani did not agree to and she sued. I think this lawsuit is interesting because of this. You could have Stefani 'singing' any song, including things she would never want to sing. This is not so unlike Daz Studio, where a model can be made to do, well, literally anything. This lawsuit was eventually settled out of court and terms not disclosed. It turns out people don't want their likeness to made doing things they would not do. That places Daz Studio in an awkward spot, and probably why you don't see any attempts at a Stefani look a like.

Now, let's look at that first link you gave us. In that post, the Andy Warhol prints are labeled as "fine art." It is only because they are fine art that they are allowed. So now you have to define what fine art is, and in order for a computer render to be OK, it needs to fit the definition of fine art. This is a whole different argument, but lets be frank, a Supreme Court judge will probably not rule that Daz renders are fine art. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that t-shirt drawing of the Three Stooges were not transformative enough to qualify as fine art and thus not protected.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/supreme-court-rules-three-stooges-t-shirts-are-not-protected-art

This line caught my eye: "The difference, the court said, was that Warhol's works "went beyond the commercial exploitation of celebrity images and became a form of ironic social comment on the dehumanization of celebrity itself." "

Well isn't that dandy! The way I read this is that you just have to be famous enough of an artist to pull this off. Because otherwise his works would not be seen this way.

While other cases have been dismissed, the very THREAT of a lawsuit is too much for most people. Certainly a PA cannot afford a huge lawsuit, and the store that sells these characters would also face action. Daz may be bigger than one person, but they are still a relatively small company, and I would bet Renderosity is even smaller. But their size is also a buffer. The reason behind the Lohan and Noriega lawsuits is very simple; those titles are among the biggest in all of gaming. Call of Duty can sell over 20 million copies. GTA is doing hundreds of millions in microtransactions alone, on top of the millions of copies sold. So they have money. Also, most people have no idea what Daz Studio even is...so it is well under the radar for most people...and lawyers.

There are some 'famous faces' over at Renderosity which have been updated to be less accurate to their inspirations. I don't know the whole story, but it is not without precedent in the Daz world. 

No, it really is that simple. Actors, real living actors, are used all the time artistically in art by complete strangers. The most repetitive way is with these memes that keep being based around social media making the businesses that make those facilities available more than red ink on their bank account balance you can be sure - the ink on those bank balances would be black.

Really, they can cromplain and complain it's not legal all they want but it is legal. Nothing gives actors and the mass media businesses that employ them the right to make art about John Nash, or such other people but forbids that you, I, or some pauper that is unknown, unpopular, and poor to make such art in this mass media culture we live in. To restrict what I can say about someone else strictly because that person makes their living saying things about other people is illegal. That's what being said by people that think the rich & famous are not fair game for the masses to use in the masses own artistic expressions of the those rich & famous.

And no saying they can sue you and you can't afford to defend yourself so what the law actually says is moot is not a valid arguement.

outrider42

nonesuch00 said:

outrider42 said:

nonesuch00 said:

shadowz said:

freni-kyn said:

I've wondered for a while now how vendors get away with creating look-a-like models.  Do they have to get permission from the celebrity figure?  Please know this is not a criticism, just wondering if anyone knows the legalities for this.  Who knows, there may be a day when I want to make a look-alike to sell.

I think it works as long as you don't use their real identity/names. I'm not sure of all the legal bounds to that as per DAZ3D or Renderosity, but looks like you can sell using a different name. 

But if you can get the person's consent it would always be great isn't it. Reby Sky for example was created with her consent as I understand. Which is why her real identity is also used by the artist.

I don't think that's true. Someone can do a portrait in traditional media of anyone they please & use the real name of the person portrayed and sell it.  

https://www.quora.com/Did-Andy-Warhol-need-Marilyn-Monroe’s-or-Campbell-Soup’s-permission-to-use-their-likenesses-in-his-iconic-paintings

As one example where this question gets asked again and again.

So unless you use create the textures directly from the multiplicity of different photos from different photographers digitally you are not going to infringe. And if you can pose a digital model and it look just like that person well that was the point of the digital model just like that is the case with many oil portraits.

If only it was that simple. It is called the "Right to Publicity".

Monroe could not sue Warhol because she was dead. Plus the state of California did not have any right of publicity after death at that time (it has since changed.) The state later ruled that her rights ended when she died. So that is also why you see Monroe show up in so many places today...her likeness is not protected. But that was also a different time, people were not as consumed with this right of publicity as they are today. I truly believe if Warhol was getting started today, and he made a print of somebody like Lindsay Lohan, he would be sued without mercy. Why did I say Lohan, read on.

These rights vary greatly from state to state in America. That is also why when lawsuits happen, they are made in certain states which might favor the plaintiff. This has happened numerous times in the video game world. Two well known cases involve Lindsay Lohan and Manuel Noriega (yes, the former dictator of Panama.) Lohan sued TakeTwo Interactive, the owner of the studio that makes Grand Theft Auto, for using her likeness in GTA5. The character she claimed was based on her was also a famous actress, so the similarities were more than just CG skin deep. Noriega sued Activsion who owns the Call of Duty series for using his likeness in Black Ops 2. In that game, there is no question that the character is Noriega it is openly stated in the game as being him. The dispute is more about slander, as the lawsuit claimed that CoD Noriega is a "kidnapper, murderer and enemy of the state". Ironic, I know.

Both lawsuits were dismissed.

In another case, various NCAA football athletes sued Electronic Arts for using their likeness in numerous college football games. What is noteworthy here is that these depictions in the game were never named. Players were only given their jersey number, and the character portrait of the athlete was highly generic (as in, they reused the same face for many different players.) The only way to tell who was who was by their skin color, position, and their relative ability. For example, the star quarterback for Florida who could run as good as any running back was almost certainly Tim Tebow (though Tebow was not involved in any lawsuit, that is just an example.)

This lawsuit was eventually settled out of court, and EA paid $40 or 60 million, which was spread out among almost 25,000 players who are eligible. It is possible EA could have fought this all the way through, but they chose not to.

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/ea-sports-settles-with-college-athletes-for--60-million-203005134.html

This would lead to the death of the NCAA Football game series. The games were extremely popular and profitable, but the legal uncertainty around the athletes lead EA to kill the series. It is complicated by the NCAA itself, which refuses to allow athletes to accept any form of payment or they lose eligibility. So EA cannot pay the athletes even if they want to, but you have athletes suing for compensation...so yeah.

One interesting case involves Gwen Stefani vs Activision's Rock Band. Stefani and her former band No Doubt is included in the game along with some of their songs. The problem is that you could unlock Stefani's avatar and use her to sing other song by other bands. This is something that Stefani did not agree to and she sued. I think this lawsuit is interesting because of this. You could have Stefani 'singing' any song, including things she would never want to sing. This is not so unlike Daz Studio, where a model can be made to do, well, literally anything. This lawsuit was eventually settled out of court and terms not disclosed. It turns out people don't want their likeness to made doing things they would not do. That places Daz Studio in an awkward spot, and probably why you don't see any attempts at a Stefani look a like.

Now, let's look at that first link you gave us. In that post, the Andy Warhol prints are labeled as "fine art." It is only because they are fine art that they are allowed. So now you have to define what fine art is, and in order for a computer render to be OK, it needs to fit the definition of fine art. This is a whole different argument, but lets be frank, a Supreme Court judge will probably not rule that Daz renders are fine art. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that t-shirt drawing of the Three Stooges were not transformative enough to qualify as fine art and thus not protected.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/supreme-court-rules-three-stooges-t-shirts-are-not-protected-art

This line caught my eye: "The difference, the court said, was that Warhol's works "went beyond the commercial exploitation of celebrity images and became a form of ironic social comment on the dehumanization of celebrity itself." "

Well isn't that dandy! The way I read this is that you just have to be famous enough of an artist to pull this off. Because otherwise his works would not be seen this way.

While other cases have been dismissed, the very THREAT of a lawsuit is too much for most people. Certainly a PA cannot afford a huge lawsuit, and the store that sells these characters would also face action. Daz may be bigger than one person, but they are still a relatively small company, and I would bet Renderosity is even smaller. But their size is also a buffer. The reason behind the Lohan and Noriega lawsuits is very simple; those titles are among the biggest in all of gaming. Call of Duty can sell over 20 million copies. GTA is doing hundreds of millions in microtransactions alone, on top of the millions of copies sold. So they have money. Also, most people have no idea what Daz Studio even is...so it is well under the radar for most people...and lawyers.

There are some 'famous faces' over at Renderosity which have been updated to be less accurate to their inspirations. I don't know the whole story, but it is not without precedent in the Daz world. 

No, it really is that simple. Actors, real living actors, are used all the time artistically in art by complete strangers. The most repetitive way is with these memes that keep being based around social media making the businesses that make those facilities available more than red ink on their bank account balance you can be sure - the ink on those bank balances would be black.

Really, they can cromplain and complain it's not legal all they want but it is legal. Nothing gives actors and the mass media businesses that employ them the right to make art about John Nash, or such other people but forbids that you, I, or some pauper that is unknown, unpopular, and poor to make such art in this mass media culture we live in. To restrict what I can say about someone else strictly because that person makes their living saying things about other people is illegal. That's what being said by people that think the rich & famous are not fair game for the masses to use in the masses own artistic expressions of the those rich & famous.

And no saying they can sue you and you can't afford to defend yourself so what the law actually says is moot is not a valid arguement.

A meme is not a commercial use of art. Daz is not selling memes, they are selling actual assets to be used in art, which is a commercial use. Please read the link I provided above and it shall be clear.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/supreme-court-rules-three-stooges-t-shirts-are-not-protected-art

Keep in mind that this court order that the maker of these tshirts pay $225,000 in damages to the studio that owned the rights to the Three Stooges. That is a real court case, with a real judgement...it is not that easy. I am rather shocked you would make a claim that law is somehow easy, especially when every state has its own right of publicity laws.

I've got more where that came from.

Don Henley sued a department store for making and selling shirts that had playful uses of his name. Henley's image was not used, but Henley had never given permission. The court ruled in favor of Henley.

James Brown sued Corbis photo agency for using his likeness without permission, and won.

In a weird case, Johnny Carson sued a toilet maker who called their portable toilet's the "Here's Johnny". Carson claimed this infringed on his rights of publicity, and the court agreed. That was back in 1977. This gets even weirder, though, as almost 30 years later, after Carson had died, the toilet company tried AGAIN. This time claiming that the rights had died with Johnny. But the state of California has laws that keep these rights in place, and the Carson estate had those rights. So no, there will never be a "Here's Johnny" Portable toilet. Sorry.

https://loweringthebar.net/2010/04/man-still-cannot-use-heres-johnny-for-portable-toilet-business-says-trademark-board.html

Now you might say these are different, that some cases were based on trademarks or phrases more than the likeness. However you surely know that most PAs drop hints in their products as to who they are, just in case you missed it. The name of the character might reflect a role the actor played, for example. Popular Game of Thrones characters often have a winter theme about them.

Next we have Michael Jordan vs Jewel-Osco. Osco placed and ad in Sports Illustrated that congratulates him on his hall of fame induction. The trouble is that the ad was created in a way that it made it appear that Jordan was endorsing their products, which he was not. Jordan sued and won. And Jordan made this statement: 

"Jordan filed the lawsuits in 2010 in Chicago. He told jurors he has final say on anything that involves his likeness and name, and he will protect that."

Now this is interesting because there are lots and lots of memes of Jordan on the internet. He has not sued anybody over them. BUT I will bet you a pretty large sum of money that if you created a Daz character like Jordan and sold him in the store...and he found out about it...you would be receiving calls from his lawyers very quickly. I'll take anybody on this bet right now! I could use some cash.

That brings us back to memes vs other artistic use like Warhol. Lets once again review the language by the judge in my first link. 

"The difference, the court said, was that Warhol's works "went beyond the commercial exploitation of celebrity images and became a form of ironic social comment on the dehumanization of celebrity itself." "

Note the language here. The statement clarifies that art that goes BEYOND commercial use would be protected. None of the previous things go beyond commercial use. If you sold a Daz character, that is commercial use. Memes go beyond commercial, because they are not sold, and two, they are a form social commentary.

Ikyoto

nDelphi said:

Ikyoto said:

Would it be possible to have figures broken out by mdel type?  V4, Genesis, G2, G3, etc..

Is this directed at my searchable directory? If so, it's possible, but I don't know if I want to implement it at this time.

You may not know you want to, but my voies out voted yours.  Imaginary people count!

nDelphi

Arry for Genesis 8 Female - Arya Stark is finally here.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=125213&AID=666

MGHSFAN2k

Working on improving blubeetle13's "Best Companion" (Elisabeth Sladen/Sarah Jane Smith from Doctor Who) morph again... Why I'm working on it again is beyond me...

What do you think so far?

agent unawares

nDelphi said:

Arry for Genesis 8 Female - Arya Stark is finally here.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=125213&AID=666

I wish @Phoenix1966 would do all the guys to match this set.

tj_1ca9500b

I think that Eilish for G3F looks a lot like Katie McGrath (she plays Lena Luthor in Supergirl).

Maaaaybe tweak the mouth a bit so the lips are a bit less 'heart shaped/full' but otherwise looks quite close...

nDelphi

In the first promo image she looks like Jessica Chastain.

https://www.daz3d.com/suzy-for-genesis-8-female

Nath

agent unawares said:

nDelphi said:

Arry for Genesis 8 Female - Arya Stark is finally here.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=125213&AID=666

I wish @Phoenix1966 would do all the guys to match this set.

Yeah, I'd kill for a good likeness of Ned Stark

colinmac2

Orishi is the most incredible likeness of Lucy Liu, something I never thought possible!  Snapped her up immediately, budget be darned!

maikdecker

Nath said:

Yeah, I'd kill for a good likeness of Ned Stark

Maby you should take a look at Eddard... sorry, Edward.

dragonfly_2004 said:

Edward HD with a couple of extras. With a little tweaking, I think he'd be a Stark reminder of someone.

...or dont You think so?

Nath

Yeah, Edward comes close to the look, and with some dial spinning morphs he could get even closer.

Phoenix Knight

AnotherUserName said:

 

Mamma Ru must be in my library!

 

I completely misread that and got all excited about a Mumm-Ra model to use in Daz.  Now I so badly want one, mummy form and Everliving form.

Phoenix1966

agent unawares said:

nDelphi said:

Arry for Genesis 8 Female - Arya Stark is finally here.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=125213&AID=666

I wish @Phoenix1966 would do all the guys to match this set.

I'm not saying yes to this, but I'm not saying no, either. 

DisparateDreamer

colinmac2 said:

Orishi is the most incredible likeness of Lucy Liu, something I never thought possible!  Snapped her up immediately, budget be darned!

Yep totally agree.

 

Anyone else notice the Patterson lookalike, too?

I don't get a lot of celebs but dang I got Arya... i don't even watch GoT, i just like the actress

agent unawares

Phoenix1966 said:

agent unawares said:

nDelphi said:

Arry for Genesis 8 Female - Arya Stark is finally here.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=125213&AID=666

I wish @Phoenix1966 would do all the guys to match this set.

I'm not saying yes to this, but I'm not saying no, either. 

Pleeeeeeeaaaaase.

You can have my soul, I'm not using it.

VincentXyooj

Not sure if anyone noticed, but Im almost certain that this model is based off Lucy Liu, maybe im wrong but I do get this vibe from her :)

https://www.daz3d.com/ps-onishi-for-genesis-8-female--victoria-8

agent unawares

So who is Miriam supposed to be?

bluejaunte

agent unawares said:

So who is Miriam supposed to be?

Nobody. Well actually she looks a bit like a friend but nobody famous 

Phoenix1966

agent unawares said:

Phoenix1966 said:

agent unawares said:

nDelphi said:

Arry for Genesis 8 Female - Arya Stark is finally here.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=125213&AID=666

I wish @Phoenix1966 would do all the guys to match this set.

I'm not saying yes to this, but I'm not saying no, either. 

Pleeeeeeeaaaaase.

You can have my soul, I'm not using it.

Let's just say I might have been talking with Sangriart to find out what plans the vendor might have regarding the men of GoT, since they've already done such an amazing job on the women.

Hmm...never know when a spare soul might come in handy.

maikdecker

DisparateDreamer said:

colinmac2 said:

Orishi is the most incredible likeness of Lucy Liu, something I never thought possible!  Snapped her up immediately, budget be darned!

Yep totally agree.

Well, calling that figure "Orishi" is some kind of hint, isn't it? Maybe we get a "William", "Buddy" "L. Racer" and "Verna Jade", too... and finally "The Fiance"

 

 

Phoenix1966 said:

agent unawares said:

I wish @Phoenix1966 would do all the guys to match this set.

I'm not saying yes to this, but I'm not saying no, either. 

Well, considering You already did "the Dad", but left out Castiel and - my personal favorite - Fergus MacLeod aka Crowley, You kinda owe the fanbase something...

Worlds_Edge

Phoenix1966 said:

agent unawares said:

nDelphi said:

 

I wish @Phoenix1966 would do all the guys to match this set.

I'm not saying yes to this, but I'm not saying no, either. 

Tease!  LOL  Anyway, I for one, await any new figures by you.  They're all wonderful.

maikdecker

Anyone looking for a Sin City Mickey Rourke? Look at this guy -> https://www.daz3d.com/bad-guy-for-m4

manekiNeko

bluejaunte said:

agent unawares said:

So who is Miriam supposed to be?

Nobody. Well actually she looks a bit like a friend but nobody famous 

i really started when i saw the promo.. with this blonde hairdo, she totally looks like one of my friends too - including the expression ^^

RenderPretender

Anyone aware of a Jillian Michaels 3D likeness? I could have sworn I saw one once, but can't recall where. Anybody?

Thanks for reading!

nDelphi

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Jaime Lannister of Game of Thrones.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=125793&AID=666

 

 

Haruchai

I need to watch more TV/Movies I think. Who are these two ladies please?

carrie58

The second one looks like J-lo to me