“Our legendary personalities are evergreen ‘brands’ with the benefit of worldwide recognition,” reads a message on the Richman agency’s website. Guardian UK Article *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? ( boingboing : Bill Gates 0wns Einstein, Groucho , Freud, Asimov, Fuller, et al )
I still can't get my head around this! What an awful story.
ReplyDeleteI think, somehow in their minds, they thought that someone would be happy to turn over the camera and such to them when they learned that their sick child ws attached to it. The person who actually owns the camera was reasonably kind about coming to a compromise, so it is hard to know why the parents of the child balked at honoring their portion of the agreement.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It is hard to understand.