Entertainment blog - news about music and movies

By Leslie Simmons

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - For actors, image is
everything. And misuse of that image is enough to take someone
to court for using it without consent.

Over the years, performers have done just that. From Arnold
Schwarzenegger suing a car dealership for using his picture as
the “Terminator” in an ad, to Fred Astaire’s widow stopping the
use of the iconic dancer’s image in a series of instructional
dance videos, “right of publicity” lawsuits are sometimes the
only ways an image can be protected. And while a handful of
states, including California and New York, have laws on the
books protecting a name, voice, signature, picture or likeness
for advertising or other uses, the majority do not.

So what happens when a major Hollywood studio wants to sell
off film or TV clips of actors without full consent? Are those
rights still protected?

The answer is no.

It should come as no surprise to those who followed the 18
days of labor talks between the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and
the studios that one bone of contention was a proposal allowing
the studios to set up an online clip library. Under the
proposal, the actors would still be compensated for sales of
their TV or film clips, but give blanket consent to their use.

The proposal creates a conundrum. Studio contracts
generally take precedence, but the guild’s current agreement
with the producers gives their members the ability to have a
say in clips used outside the scope of promotion.

There’s no dispute the studios own the clips. But for SAG,
giving up control of their members’ images is a hot-button
issue that could heat even further later this month, when talks
are expected to resume.

Since 1960, SAG has negotiated with the studios an
agreement that limits the use of their clips for purposes of
such things as promotions and trailers. The studios have to get
clearance from the actor for anything that falls outside that
scope. 

Comments are closed at this time.