|
Author
|
Topic: Buzz Aldrin sues Topps, Inc. over trading cards
|
Michael Ritter
Member Posts: 48
From: Long Island, NY USA
Registered: Dec 2007
|
posted 12-31-2010 10:02 AM
   
As far as I know, Topps only pays the professional ball players a few hundred dollars for their consent to be on baseball cards. After reading through the pdfs it seems like Topps might have offered Buzz a few hundred dollars for the use of his likeness and he turned it down, most likely for a larger dollar figure. Without knowing the details it is hard to speculate who is in the wrong here, Topps for not offering enough or Buzz for asking for too much. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 12-31-2010 11:55 AM
Well, I guess some might argue that he ought to allow this issue to pass without defending his rights under law, but according to the documents there have been over 100 previous infringements successfully pursued for Dr. Aldrin. Maybe it is about the money, just as it may have been about the money when the Irwin family pursued similar cases. And Nancy Conrad. And Neil Armstrong. And Bruce McCandless. And, well ... you get the picture. I guess I'll conclude by saying, let he who would pass up the opportunity to defend himself similarly cast the first stone. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 12-31-2010 07:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
And Neil Armstrong.
Armstrong's lawsuit against Hallmark likely wasn't about the money, as Armstrong donated the settlement to Purdue University. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 12-31-2010 08:37 PM
Let's remember that in the case of McCandless and Dido, from what I recall he was indeed identified in the liner notes and was due to be compensated, but wasn't. It was a failure to pay up and I can't blame McCandless for that. In this instance, it would seem that Topps attempted to work out a deal with Buzz, didn't even get that far, and went ahead with their product. On the one hand, Topps was probably wrong to just go ahead with their marketing scheme and I'm not surprised Buzz is pissed. On the other hand, I personally think Buzz needs to learn to pick his battles and consider his place in history. Sometimes we all just need to take a step back and take a good long look at ourselves. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 12-31-2010 08:57 PM
A question for the lawyers out there, if you decide to "pick your battles" with regard to protecting the rights to the use of your image, does that set a precedent for others to then also use your image without compensation?The fact that Topps apparently tried to compensate Aldrin would seem to indicate that even they knew he was due compensation for the use of his image. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-02-2011 02:10 AM
Not necessarily. Buzz could have written a letter asserting his control over the use of that image for commercial purposes, but could have granted them use of that photo for little or no compensation. As long as he asserts what he believes to be his rights, he should be able to set whatever price he wishes for commercial use of his image.Interestingly, I was watching an episode of Mythbusters today that had a life size cutout of the Aldrin visor photo in the background (standing among the other stuff in their shop). Since Mythbusters is a commercial program, I wonder if Buzz has an agreement with them and/or whether he has an issue with them displaying that image. (Of course, there was also the episode where they debunked a conspiracy theory surrounding another photo of Aldrin descending the ladder of the LM. I wonder what, if any, compensation was negotiated for that usage.) |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-02-2011 04:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
...had a life size cutout of the Aldrin visor photo in the background
That cutout was a licensed product (as confirmed by the company that produced it). At one time, it was even offered for sale through Aldrin's own website. quote:
I wonder what, if any, compensation was negotiated for that usage.
I believe that Mythbusters use of the photo falls under the same protections that allow school text books to display photos of identifiable people without license — the same protections that Topps is claiming in this case. Mythbusters is a commercial production but one would be hard pressed to establish a direct connection between their use of Aldrin's image and a commercial purpose, which is what is required to claim rights of publicity under the California civil code. In Topps' case, according to Aldrin's attorney, the commercial purpose is marketing. |
RPF09
Member Posts: 14
From:
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 01-04-2011 08:19 AM
You only have to look at the numerous items sold on various official outlets to see that the baseball card, in my humble opinion, is simply another piece of cheap merchandise (“tat” would be the unkind English slang word) to gain profit. Given everything other piece of merchandise this particular image is produced on, I cannot see any realistic or significant objection to it.Of course if the image were portrayed on some grossly offensive material / item, then I would agree to an objection, but what is so special about a piece of card given the numerous other piece of merchandise you can buy like this? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-04-2011 08:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by RPF09:
...what is so special about a piece of card given the numerous other piece of merchandise you can buy like this?
The other merchandise (presumably) has Dr. Aldrin's permission and/or license. GreenLight, the same company that manages the rights for the estates of Albert Einstein, the Wright Brothers and Thomas Alva Edison, manages Aldrin's licensing. |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1310
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 01-04-2011 04:54 PM
Well, this is certainly one debate that could go either way: if you're for Aldrin and his court case, you support his right to a fair compensation for the use of his image; on the other hand, as, in effect, a member of the military seconded to NASA at the time of Apollo 11, didn't he waive all 'rights' for use of his image as taken by government employees (i.e. Armstrong and others)? As there are many collectibles with his likeness already out there, this suit is mainly for future products-can you imagine suing to demand payment/royalties retroactively?(!). After all, many Apollo-Shuttle-ISS astronauts are depicted on souvenirs that bear their likeness, taken by NASA photographers, and I don't see them lining up to sue (maybe they're waiting for this one high-profile case to go forward). Again, it may be that there are just so many lawsuits already over matters big and small (full disclosure: I work at a law firm), but Aldrin's place in history is secure without his elbowing for more publicity-good or bad. It's his right-and time-of course. I wonder, also, if he's doing this to insure his image is 'protected' after his lifetime and to benefit any heirs. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-10-2011 02:36 PM
On Feb. 9, 2011, Buzz Aldrin's counsel filed a Consent to Proceed to waive his right to proceed before a District Judge and consent to have the assigned Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal conduct all further proceedings in the case, including trial and entry of the final judgment. |
albatron
Member Posts: 2732
From: Stuart, Florida
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 02-10-2011 03:15 PM
Interesting. I wonder, how many other astronauts seeks to maintain their rights over their image or photography?Checking with an attorney, Neil actually may have a suit if it's recognized that he is the photographer, in much the same way Buzz is asserting his rights, should Neil proceed to maintain the rights to them. This is very tricky, and differs from state to state and Federally as well. Nonetheless, is it only Buzz? McCandless was brought up but as Aurora correctly pointed out that was a failure to pay an agreed upon contract. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-10-2011 03:25 PM
My understanding is that Armstrong would only have rights as the photographer if he held the copyright. In the case of all NASA photos, the space agency owns (but does not assert in most cases) copyright. A number of astronauts have protected their rights to publicity (or similar legal standing), though their activities have not all been made public (they did not involve the judiciary system). About ten years ago, I worked with an ad agency who wanted to use imagery picturing a wide array of astronauts. I reached out to each: some didn't care, some wanted to be compensated, and some only wanted to be acknowledged by name. |
albatron
Member Posts: 2732
From: Stuart, Florida
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 02-10-2011 06:27 PM
And Buzz doesn't hold a copyright either. Now he can get away with it because he is linked to the image. But the famous image of Buzz, Neil is also linked to it as the photographer. This is how Neil could assert his rights - according to my legal source. And we can only speculate who has, since no one knows for sure, all of them. Hence my question, does anyone knowW who has by virtue of news coverage of them going after people as Buzz is? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-10-2011 09:13 PM
Aldrin can make a claim because he is identifiable in the image (due to his name tag being visible and readable). There are other photos of Aldrin on the moon for which he has no say. As for Armstrong, he (and his counsel) are not shy about halting the commercial use of his image (and name, voice, etc.) so he is clearly well aware of what he can and cannot legally claim. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-08-2011 09:55 AM
The Los Angeles Times reports that Buzz Aldrin's lawsuit against Topps, Inc. has been dismissed by a judge. U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson ruled that Topps' use of photographs from the Apollo 11 mission was protected as "free speech of an issue of public interest." He dismissed the lawsuit Sept. 27.Aldrin has appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "We believe that the federal trial court's ruling could effectively end California's well-established and statutory right of publicity law as it affects the use of celebrity images on trinkets such as plates, pencils, trading cards and the like," Aldrin's attorney, Robert C. O'Brien, said. "Accordingly, Dr. Aldrin has appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. He is hopeful for a positive result from the appeals court." |
Topic Closed
advertisement