Discussion post / student replies

Discussion – one paragraph

In 1984, California passed the Celebrity Rights Act, which protected the right of the deceased celebrity up to 50 years after his or her death (Petty and D’Rozario 2009). Should the use of these sorts of images and CG be legally constrained? Is there a difference in using this technology to complete a story in a film, or using it for advertising?

page 156-157 in the pdf. NO CITATIONS OR QUOTATIONS

——————————————————————————————————–

Student Replies – 4 sentences each

1.These sorts of images should not be constrained because deceased celebrities do not need protecting. There is always going to be that point in time where magazine companies will want to put the picture of a deceased celebrity on a magazine cover. There is a difference between the type of images or technology which used in film and advertising. The type of images used in film creates stories. An example are the images Trevor Loudon uses in his documentary the Enemies Within. The images used in advertising go to the selling of a good or service. An example is when sports equipment manufactures use pictures of Baseball players on the tags of their products.

2. All peoples rights should be protected, celebrity or not. The use of CG and these sorts of images should be constrained to a certain degree. These businessmen who decide to target celebrities life rights, and pursue to make a profit off of them do it solely for that purpose. For example, yesterday famous entrepreneur, artist, and actor Ray J bought legendary Death Row mogul Suge Knights life rights. He plans to do a series or a biographical movie. This seemed more like a nod of respect, than an attempt to make money. He wanted his story out there, and Ray J definitely has the means and funds to make this come true. But even then there will be major profit to be made. In my opinion this makes the difference between using them in a story to complete a film or using them for advertising. When you use these methods for advertising it is largely for profit. These major companies compete for many deceased celebrities all the time because they know that’s where the moneys at. Now for instance in a story or film, the individual may want their story told the right way and maybe not even the right way but their way so they will agree to let these producers proceed with their business.

3. These rights should most definitely be protected, and it does not matter whether the deceased is a celebrity or not. All persons are under the Constitution of the United States are equally protected, so these rights should be protected. Also, the difference between using this technology for a film, and using it for advertising is a moot point. This is because both are used to reach people with the product being sold.