This may sound kind of silly, but if some studio decides to make their main character a Ryan Reynolds clone, can he actually sue them ?
Obviously no mentioning of the name of the character, but you can tell it is them.
Not sure if it comes under copyright or some other law, but yes.
Something to do with personality rights, yes. Not really copyright, since copyright applies to created works, but you can’t use a person’s likeness without their permission.
I would like that but honestly there is a whole industry of folk that make their, quite lucrative in some cases, living off of the famous. Queen Elizabeth the II to name just one. There was an entire movie (or two) based off of her.
So how can they courts stop you with all those precedents? More likely the publisher and or potential customers will reject it if it’s in poor taste, witness the hoards of lost viewers of television in the US, especially network television. The cable and satellite channels are also loosing viewers now too.
That was one of the things that helped the iPhone and iPad so much…people sick of TV that would never stand to sit in front of a computer will play games, browse, and read on an iPhone or iPad.
Makes me wonder how much you need to touch up on to avoid suits. Maybe different hair, nose shape, etc.
I’d just point out that that is a potentially foolish argument to make. Just because X used Y owned by Z doesn’t mean X used Y without Z’s knowledge, permission or compensation. And even if X managed to do that, it doesn’t mean that you can [for example, X may have used parody while you are not, X may be in different legal jurisdiction etc.]. Lastly, even if it turns out you can use Y, it doesn;t mean A, B, C etc. also fall under the same scenario.
/Alphabetic Rant
You’re still using the original source without permission, so it’s still not yours. Under copyright this would fall under derivative works.
It doesn’t work like that man.
Heh. True.
Mostly what it comes down to is context. The Queen is a historical public figure, movies about her are in that context. (or parody). With actors, their “product” is their likeness. They have essentially built an IP around their appearance and performance, and using that likeness commercially without their permission could lead to a lawsuit.
Faces are trademarked/copyright their respective owners and they need permission for you to use them. Likeness is generally licensed and a big business. Some games deliberately avoid the license fees of the actor by portraying the hero as NOT looking like arnie / ryan etc.
So yes, its copyright and you do need permission. Particularly if that person is famous. Don’t look for loop holes, there aren’t any useful ones you can exploit.
Actors have already sued over misuse of their likeness many, many times - successfully I might add. I am not sure if anyone in GAMES has been sued because everyone’s smart enough to license the likeness or avoid it (movie tie ins)
This is why in some movie tie-in games, the hero doesn’t look anything like the actor.
However, if your game’s subject matter isn’t related to a film ryan’s done recently you can probably get away with a very close likeness. Just add a cleft chin or something?
I think this is the domain of privacy laws.
Public personalities are caricatured in cartoons all the time. When it comes to a game, how much is permissible, I do not know
This area of law can get pretty crazy. Last year Old Navy had a commercial with an unknown actress, Melissa Molinaro, who looked a lot like Kim Kardashian. Of course Mellissa Molinaro looked even more like Melissa Molinaro, but Kim Kardashian sued anyway:
I wouldn’t mess with it…
Publicity Rights cover one’s name, likeness, image, and other unique traits. This applies to everybody. If your character looks too much like a real person, the real person can sue.
I am trying to hunt down the exact law protecting this, but I’m certain it’s not copyrights nor trademarks. If I remember correctly, the goal of the law has various goals. For one, it prevents the use of a photograph taken in public and then stamped in an add, acting as if the celebrity in question endorses said product. This also got Facebook in trouble by using random user’s likes in ads, it’s not made to protect only celebrities. Many people can get in trouble for those practices, an employee getting in trouble at his work due to a face being used in a competitor’s ad, a politician’s face used to promote an event or rally that goes entirely opposite to his platform, an actor being associated with tasteless products that may affect their reputation, etc etc.
The second important aspect is pay. Imagine the case where Kim Kardashian was approached to do a tv spot. She asks for six figures pay and the agency thinks thats absurd. So they take instead photos and videos taken on the street and montage them into an ad, not having to pay her a penny. That is protected.
There are some situations where the likeliness of anyone can be used. For one, if I take a photo of you in the street and make a news story that says you were at the street, although boring, would be entirely fair, it’s news.
I can also do parody, I can make a sketch of a famous individual and use it as part of a joke, or animated sketch. I may also use a look alike with makeup to look as close as possible for a comedy act that mocks the personality (not an act that pretends the actor was involved, though.)
This bit I am not 100% certain, but I think you can use important political figures in works of fiction. For instance, the likeliness of President Obama in an illustrated work that depicted him as the president of the united states. The works need to be either very respectful, biographic or parody. I don’t think you may be in a good position if you made a movie with a president look-alike that attempted to portray him as the secret leader of the KKK. From my observation, if I’m right here, this is only about public office political figures or candidates, not something that applies to celebrities.
The problem with the Kim Kardashian case MooseMouse brings up is very likely in details we have no full access to (they settled the case so this stuff didn’t go public.) Here is what I guess: Old Navy approached Kim Kardashian for the spot but she wanted too much money. They instead started a search for a look-alike, and once found it was documented, either via emails or production materials, that this model had to made look as closely to Kim as possible. Shortly after the case started, either Old Navy or Kim’s lawyers realized this was too heavily documented as an attempt to make the model actually look like Kim and felt compelled to just settle out of court.
At the end of the day, it’s safest to stay away from trying to make a character look like a famous personality. If you are just thinking about modeling a face and using a celebrity as a reference, that may be OK as long as you don’t end up making a full replica. Take enough artistic freedom to make the face distinct, only using the reference as a vague guide. May be better to use a known individual for reference shots, though, since you can get photos from multiple angles at your liking.
This has to do with Publicity Rights.
Missed your post while writing my long one 
Only if it’s proven to be intentional. Accidental likeliness is to be expected, also the reason why you see that disclaimer in some media that goes like “any resemblance to people living or dead is purely coincidental.”
Actually, at least in the US , your free to make fun of politicians all you want . Even in bad taste ,ITS STILL free speech ( Look up 2016 Obama’s America , a slander piece but its still free speech) .
Generally i’d advise against using an actors likeness without their consent, even if your best friend looks just like 2Pac, and you modeled him in your game, the familiy of 2Pac could still sue
Not really. Slander pieces can only be done if the statement is true. For instance “my opposition got kicked out of a bar for drunk fighting in 1993.” Thats true and it is a public figure so it is accepted, even if it can be seen as slander (well it’s not really slander since it’s a true thing.)
Free speech has limits, it has never been about full ability to communicate anything you want. Free Speech in the US only means that the government will not interfere with certain forms of communication (press for example.)
There are many other laws that do block what many consider “free speech”, anti-defamation laws are in the list. If you going to bash a figure, politician or not, you better be sure to be able to back up what you saying. It does not HAVE to be 100% truth, but you must be able to prove that all evidence YOU had access to when you made the statement convinced you that it was true.
Comedy gets you a get-out-of-jail-free card, but it has to be very obvious comedy was your pursuit.
Apparently your not very info American politics, 90% of political ads right now amount to defamation and slander .
Even this so called evidence doesn’t have to be all that great . Like you could say something like " Politician X hasn’t released his transcripts for one year of college, we believe this is due to him being trained on Mars in the art of Alien kung fu , don’t let an Alien martial artist be elected . "
Thats a joke, but some of these ads are outrageous as that.
You my good sir, have not been to Australia xD
They make up crap all the time just so they can make their opposition look bad.
The most recent derogatory campaign is to call an opposition member sexist which is clearly… Not true
You try to sound like a lawyer but you’re not.
I simply gave a real world example of a very famous person whose life is repeatedly being used by business to make profit. I’ve seen the Crown Jewels and honestly that family is underpaid.
There are many celebrity impersonators in the US. Celebrity parodies abound in ‘for profit’ newpapers, magazines, and television shows all of types.
That’s not enough to get your game noticed, far more celebrity made movies flop than are successful. If you try to go that route you are better off basing your game off of some scandal paper like the National Enquirer or the Sun.