It has already been established that any "IP rights" that may be inherent in a photograph belong to the photographer, *not* the subject. A black mark to the University of Wales for bowing down to the whims and caprices of fools.
The "little-known" Lampeter campus of the University of Wales is certainly now familiar to Steven Spielberg's lawyers after they fired off a letter to the seat of learning accusing it of using the director's image without his permission. The offending snap appeared as part of a "collation of pictures" of course students, the …
This post has been deleted by its author
...What a twat... What an absolute twat. Not to mention the lawyers. Yeah, if they'd put his face on a poster or leaflet with something offensive on, you could maybe see why someone would complain, or maybe (if you let your mind go slack) why a cease-and-desist would be needed, but under the title 'Film Maker'?
What a twat.
Paris, because we all know where ET *really* wants to stick his glowing finger
Very true statement, however that still means they were in breach of copyright law as they didn't have the permission of the photographer to reproduce the image.
Still you have to ask what the harm was in using an image of Spielberg. Only the completely retarded would have thought that he was in some way connected to the course. It's not like they were saying you would be personally taught by him or that he endorsed the course in any way.
It was more of a "Hey you want to be the next Spielberg? Well you could do worse than start with a screen writing course at our University."
Assuming they had perms from the photog for image use, am I right assuming you don't own your own image under UK law anyway, like in the US? Or is that the other way round... :o?
Surely Getty/iStock/Alamy have stocks of Stealberg anyway which don't need his permission?
Also as a 'public figure' surely he has jeff all rights unless they were linking his image with some sort of unsavoury content?
Take any reference of him out of the courses and just forget him in a Merlin-forgets-Mab kinda way, maybe he'll cease to exist with luck ;o)
he actually saw the leaflet and told his lawyers about it, then I've got a bridge to sell in that London Town.
More than likely, someone saw the leaflet, sent a letter to his agent who passed it onto the lawyer without SS's involvement. Even more than likely, the lawyers sent a standardised "Cease & desist" letter which always threatens legal action. The most Spielberg would know is probably a letter from his agent/lawyer to say "a university in X was using your image without permission, we sent a C&D letter" and that's it.
All this assumes that everyone would recognize Spielberg. I've no idea what he looks like and I suspect a rather large percentage of the population are the same.
As the lawyers probably get paid for work undertaken on Spielberg's behalf it's more likely a case of the them firing off a letter just to charge him some totally disproportionate fee without having even having consulted him about it. This amount gets lost amongst other details is paid without further question.
Hopefully Spielberg will now get to hear about it and will ask questions.
You're right - no-one with a significant profile went to Lampeter. Mind you, it's not exactly the easiest place to get to, and it hasn't been unheard of for freshers attempting to reach Lampeter to turn up at Aber and ask if they'd arrived at Lampeter...
(Speaking from experience - I attended Aber, during Freshers Week in my 2nd year someone turned up wondering if they were in Lampeter...)
typical college lies or usual bad wording from the press
"Although of course as soon as we heard from Mr Spielberg's lawyers we destroyed all the leaflets and sent Mr Spielberg a personal letter of apology."
all the leaflets? what about this one in my hands? the Lawyers? the other students?the one every one saved when they were told to hand them in?
how about, "we destroyed all the ones in our possession "
ok , rant done
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021