Advertisement
www.boingboing.net/2005/04/...eins.html
www.guardian.co.uk/arts/new...4,00.html
'"Our legendary personalities are evergreen 'brands' with the benefit of worldwide recognition," reads a message on the Richman agency's website.'
*vomits*
Where is the line drawn between "public figure" and "celebrity"? How can a dead person have an agent, particulary where there are no specific works concerned other than a sense of character? It's one thing to insist that /Duck Soup/ is a work that should be protected (which any more simply means controlled by whomever has the most buX0rs), but shouldn't personalities and such pass into the public domain as well?
www.guardian.co.uk/arts/new...4,00.html
'"Our legendary personalities are evergreen 'brands' with the benefit of worldwide recognition," reads a message on the Richman agency's website.'
*vomits*
Where is the line drawn between "public figure" and "celebrity"? How can a dead person have an agent, particulary where there are no specific works concerned other than a sense of character? It's one thing to insist that /Duck Soup/ is a work that should be protected (which any more simply means controlled by whomever has the most buX0rs), but shouldn't personalities and such pass into the public domain as well?
posted by:
|
Japan
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Bill Gates 0wns Einstein, Groucho , Freud, Asimov, Fuller, et al
Sat, April 9, 2005 - 10:50 PMcommunist! -
-
Re: Bill Gates 0wns Einstein, Groucho , Freud, Asimov, Fuller, et al
Sun, April 10, 2005 - 8:36 PMyes, but a Creative Communist
-
-
Re: Bill Gates 0wns Einstein, Groucho , Freud, Asimov, Fuller, et al
Mon, April 11, 2005 - 1:31 PM"shouldn't personalities and such pass into the public domain as well?"
You'd think so, but slimy advertisers have made heirs push for this sort of thing. One case I remember was a WC Fields (post his death, of course) campaign for some booze.
Ah, here's a link to a story about a lawyer who helped create this mess:
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...004Dec6
