Carek1230
Blue Crack Overdose Get me off the internetz!
What I love about it is that is so professional and classy! It's a great "real" advertisement. Wayne, you should really be proud of it.
• Using someone’s image for commercial benefit
Many countries recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity is the direct opposite of the right of privacy. It recognizes that a person’s image has economic value that is presumed to be the result of the person’s own effort and it gives to each person the right to exploit their own image.
Under this right, you could be liable if you use a photograph of someone without their consent to gain some commercial benefit.
Although the right of publicity is frequently associated with celebrities, every person, regardless of how famous, has a right to prevent unauthorized use of their name or image for commercial purposes. However, as a matter of practice, right of publicity suits are typically brought by celebrities, who are in a better position than ordinary individuals to demonstrate that their identity has commercial value. You should, therefore, act with special caution before using a photograph of a celebrity for your own commercial gain. If you consider selling photos of celebrities or using them in advertisements or on your website, then you should certainly obtain photographic releases (that is, permission to do so) from the people portrayed in your shots.
Example: Putting an unauthorized photograph of the tennis star Kim Clijsters on the cover of a sports magazine after she wins a grand slam final, would probably not be considered an infringement of Kim’s right of publicity, since the use is mainly informative. Conversely, if you print that same picture on posters and market them, you are simply trying to make money by exploiting her image. Kim Clijsters would have grounds to file a lawsuit for infringement of her right of publicity. This can result in monetary damages against you, and/or forced removal of the posters.
Example: A photographer who displays someone’s portrait, without having first obtained the permission, in his shop window or on his website to advertise portrait services, may in some countries be liable for violating the privacy rights of the portrayed person.xiii
While an individual’s right to privacy generally ends when the individual dies, in many countries, the publicity rights continue many years after death.xiv This means, for example, that it is illegal in some countries to use a photo of Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley for commercial purposes without the consent of their estates. As a matter of fact, many representatives of well-known authors, musicians, actors, photographers, politicians, sports figures, celebrities, and other public figures continue to control and license the uses of those persons’ names, likenesses, etc.
Professional? I'm just wondering if you/your company have Bono's permission to use his image for promotional purposes. Because somehow I doubt it. And he's worth a sh*tload of money so you might want to be more careful with what you use that photo for.
I think if it was just Bono in the picture and we were using it for commercial use, then it would be unacceptable.
But this is a picture of Bono and me, also it's a private photo and I own the rights.
Staples has strict rules on what we can use and photocopy regarding copyrights. Ben took one look at the picture and said that's definetly going to be used.
Ben is our copy/print specialist, and recently got promoted to head of the department, so I highly doubt he would risk his position over a photo.
Yes, but we're not talking about an 'Iconic' image taken by a professional photographer that would be instantly recognizable but a fan photo taken with Wayne's own camera by his Dad!
Just thought I would ask. No harm done.. Just concerned for a friend that's all..
Not so sure about the poster who brought up the subject tho.
Also from what I can tell, there's absolutely no mention of Bono or U2 on the poster itself, so I would say that only us U2 fans would even recognise that that's Bono in the pic!
When I showed my co-workers the image, one said ''that's not Bono!! Since when does he have red hair??"
Yeah I'm going to have to agree. We are in a U2 community where it's sometimes hard to believe there are people who wouldn't know a member of U2 from the guy down the street. You can add in a lot more people who would recognize him because they are fans of the popular music world in general, and then maybe a few more because they have seen him on Oprah or something, but after that, I wouldn't bet on him being recognized by someone who has no interest in any of those things. I know plenty of people who wouldn't have a clue who he is, especially seen in a non-rockstar setting.
I agree... Or all the people who refer to U2 as "him"
Hey Wayne, i't most likey the work of your archnemesis, Travis Wayne. I hear he's escaped from jail.
Hey Wayne, i't most likey the work of your archnemesis, Travis Wayne. I hear he's escaped from jail.
Surely Wayne has the right to do whatever he wants with his photo, so long as the poster itself does claim that "Bono of U2 endorses Staples" or something!?!
Ya know, if the guys of U2 where such money grabbing greedy rock stars has some of you here are trying to suggest, then Bono and the rest shouldn't be going around getting their picture taken with us fans!! Surely Wayne has the right to do whatever he wants with his photo, so long as the poster itself does claim that "Bono of U2 endorses Staples" or something!?! And anyway Wayne already told us that his bosses had checked the legal aspect of using the pic so I don't see any reason why people keep bring this up?!?