Legal Question in Intellectual Property in California

Re: Pictures nude stars

The first part of my response was cut off. Here it is: I agree with Mr. Gorski that you do not own the copyright in the photos. Accordingly, you may not copy or publicly display them without being sued. However, and this is where Mr. Gorski and I part company, you do own these particular photos, you bought them fair and square, and you have no information that they were stolen. You have the right to sell these particular photos. I would think you could sell them to a tabloid such as the National Enquirer, or you could put them up for auction at a high-rent auction house. Or you could offer them for sale to the individuals who are the subject of the photos. Or you could have them framed and hang them on your wall.

Please feel free to contact me about what would probably be an interesting and challenging case. Get a safety deposit box before goons show up at your door.

Re: Pictures nude stars

I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Gorski on several points. Mr. Gorski cautions you against contradictory things. He states that the pictures may not be resold because they are not prints or posters. Then, he states that the pictures may not be resold because they are not the originals, but the negatives are the originals. In reality, it does not matter whether you consider the pictures 'originals' or 'prints.' The same copyright law applies, and you don't own the copyright either way (I don't think anyone ever suggested you do own the copyright). What you DO own is the physical pictures in your hands - nothing more, nothing less. If they are fakes, then you don't own much of anything. Authentication is germane to the value of any rare or expensive item.

I think the particular subject matter of these works - naked pictures of living famous people - is influencing the interpretation of plain and simple principles of law. You bought it, you own it, and you can resell it. You can't sell more than you own. Period. If we take this into a different factual context, it becomes more clear. If you purchased a storage unit and found a collection of old vinyl records, with original jackets, maybe even autographed - could you resell them to a collector? Of course! Does it matter that you don't own the master copy of the music? No. Does it matter that you are not in privity of contract with the artists, the producer, the record label? No. Do you own the copyright to the music? No! What you would own is the single copy of that collectors item - no more, no less.

Great minds legitimately may (and do) differ in this matter. The very fact that this issue has created a good healthy debate among colleagues who have no financial stake in the matter is a good indication to you of the potential minefield of litigation which could result from almost any course of action. All the more reason to proceed with extreme caution!

We do all have a meeting of the minds on several points:

1. NO to extortion

2. NO to copying the images

3. You need to hire an attorney to help you.

4. Proceed with extreme caution.

Now, whether all of this is hypothetical, a hoax, or we are all being "punked" doesn't really matter. We have no financial stake in the matter anyway, and it has invited productive discussion. I personally live for this kind of case - it's much more interesting than boring contract work! But, whatever pays the bills...

Good luck to you!!

Best regards,

Sarah

Re: Pictures nude stars

What an interesting find!

This is a potential mine field of lawsuits. However, if handled properly, through a good lawyer, I can see everything coming out just fine.

I agree with Mr. Stone that you own these pictures, absent any information or indication to the contrary (i.e. stolen). Keep in mind that you own these exact physical photographs - NOT rights to reproduce them (scan them, post them on the internet, sell copies). This is the "first sale" doctrine in copyright law, which means (in my own words) that when you buy a particular work, the author's rights are exhausted as to that particular work. The effect is that you can resell that particular work, but you cannot reproduce it in any way.

The scope of your legal rights in the photos presents issues for how you can legally sell the photos because you cannot sell greater rights than you own. If you don't own the rights to reproduce the photos (and you do not), then if you sold the photos to a magazine, the magazine would not have the rights to reproduce the photos in their publications. You can offer to sell the photos to an individual, but in doing so, you could not scan the image and advertise what is for sale, for example, on eBay. I personally like the idea of offering to sell the photos back to the stars, but that would just be my personal choice. Either way, I'm sure either Matt Damon's 'number 1 fan' or Matt Damon himself would be willing to pay a pretty penny for the photograph(s)!

I advise you to proceed with extreme caution and definitely get a good attorney to handle this matter for you.

I would really be curious to see how this works out - feel free to keep me posted by email. Good Luck to you!!

Sarah

Re: Pictures nude stars

Further to my previous post, I am VERY interested in this case.

This is like finding a Picasso in the attic of a house you just purchased at an estate sale (contents and all).

Please email me if you think I can be of service in this matter.

Best regards,

Sarah

Re: Pictures nude stars

I am misquoted again:

1. I never wrote �that the pictures may not be resold because they are not prints or posters.� What I wrote was �Additionally, prints and posters can be resold, but these are not prints and posters.� A print or poster (or postcard or greeting card, etc.) are products that we know are *made for sale* and thus we know with some confidence that the possessor owns the item and can resell the item. I did NOT then conclude that *only* prints and posters can be resold (or even that prints and posters can always be resold).

2. I never wrote �that the pictures may not be resold because they are not the originals, but the negatives are the originals.� What I wrote was �Moreover, these photographs are copies themselves -- the negatives (or original digital images) are the originals.�

Consider the example of �a collection of old vinyl records, with original jackets�: (a) if stolen out of Music Fan�s garage, placed in storage by Thief, bought by unsuspecting Top Bidder at auction, then resold to unsuspecting Customer, Music Fan can legally recover the vinyl records (and Music Fan need not reimburse Top Bidder or Customer); (b) vinyl records are, like prints/posters, made for sale (the jackets support that); (c) with regard to personal use, we can then consider whether these photographs are akin to prints/posters/vinyl records (lost or destroyed negative issues aside). While MalMart and Playgirl may, by written contract, ensure that they have certain ownership rights, a professional photographer, hired by some up-and-coming star, does not necessarily own the first set of photographs made from the negatives. And again, the buyer (whether at auction or otherwise), has no greater rights regarding personal use than the photographer (or the photo studio file clerk or whoever put these photographs in storage).

As to misquotes: If someone notes that �a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square� do not be mislead when someone else misquotes that as �squares and rectangles are similar, but boxes are different.� The initial statement is well-known in the study of logical reasoning, while the latter is a misquote and a serious misinterpretation of the point.

LawGuru inquirer: yes, there may be ways to make money on this, but it depends on facts that have not yet been investigated. If you look at how these types of matters are best handled, there is a procedure to follow, and it does not start with assuming �What you DO own is the physical pictures in your hands - nothing more, nothing less.� Assumptions often act as barriers to considering important steps that ought to be conducted. I have no control over when someone else mangles my words like this, so I am certainly willing to answer any questions you have by telephone regarding any of my postings.

Re: Pictures nude stars

I did not claim to know whether the photographs were stolen.

However, when someone poses for a photo shoot the contract terms govern ownership and copies. I doubt that these photos were taken without a written contract -- if, again, they are what they appear to be (perhaps Aston Kurcher is even punking us -- this episode entitled "Watch the Lawyers Foam at the Mouth"). Moreover, these photographs are copies themselves -- the negatives (or original digital images) are the originals.

The possibility that the photographer and/or last possessor had full ownership of these photographs is possible, but not a given by any stretch, and, perhaps quite unlikely.

Look (at everything) before you leap (anywhere), particularly when the waters are dangerous ... even if what appears to be gold is tempting.

Re: Pictures nude stars

Because you did not take the picture, you are limited to your private use. Generally, if a person did not take the picture, that person is limited to private use, unless, for instance, the photographer provided express written permission or it is an old photograph which is already in the public domain. Neither exception applies here (and the lack of any copyright symbol is irrelevant). Additionally, prints and posters can be resold, but these are not prints and posters.

If the photographs were stolen then you do not rightfully own them even for private use -- even though you bought the contents of the storage bin (any more than the person who rented the storage bin owned such stolen property -- and your ignorance as to whether they were stolen does not change the fact that the person from whom they were stolen still owns them). Furthermore, since you did not take the photo, you do not own the copyright and thus you do not have the right to sell the image. Lastly, there is no legal way to blackmail the celebrities depicted (although they might provide a reward for relinquishing them, if, in fact, they are real).

I may be able to provide further guidance after some inquiries, so feel free to give me a call (I provide free initial consultations).

Re: Pictures nude stars

P.S. You need to be very careful. It's nearly certain you'll be sued by these rich movie stars no matter what you do. Keep careful records of your purchase of the storage bin. Do not sneeze without having your action approved by your own lawyer. Keep the photos in a safe deposit box at the bank. Use a lawyer as an intermediary with anyone to whom you would sell the photos. Maybe it would be a good idea to offer to sell them to the individuals depicted, through a lawyer, of course.