Can Rolling Stone Sell T-Shirts Of Its Covers? It's Not That Simple, Apparently...
from the ah,-intellectual-property dept
Well, here's an interesting lawsuit. Apparently, Rolling Stone magazine decided it wanted to try selling t-shirts of some of its covers. Considering the market for t-shirts, that might not be a bad idea (especially when compared to the market for magazines these days). Obviously, the magazine and its publisher Wenner Media own the copyright on their own covers, so there shouldn't be any problem, right? Not so fast. Since the covers usually include musicians, and those musicians have vast merchandising businesses themselves, some of the companies who handle the merchandising for some top artists have sued, claiming that they have exclusive licensing deals to sell products with those musicians. Rolling Stone is arguing both that it has a First Amendment right to do this, and a fair use defense to any intellectual property claim. I'm reminded of a recent case involving magazine covers, where the use of those magazine covers in a book (by someone else) was deemed fair use, though the details are obviously quite different. Still, it probably won't surprise many people that I tend to think Rolling Stone should prevail here. The key aspect of what they're selling is that the designs are Rolling Stone covers -- not specifically which band is on the cover.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, magazine covers, rolling stone, t-shirts
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Design your own cover shirts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Design your own cover shirts
I think that the difference is that these artists agreed to be (and were perhaps even paid to be) on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Creating t-shirts from the covers may be extending the use of the artist's image beyond what was originally expected, but at least there was some kind of agreement in place about the user of the image.
(Nice Dr. Hook reference, BTW.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Design your own cover shirts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Design your own cover shirts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Design your own cover shirts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please release me, let me go....
Part of the legal question here would be "why are people buying the shirts?" If they are buying them for the celeb rather than for Rolling Stone, then the celebs would obviously have some weight in saying it's their likeness selling the shirts. Obviously, if they have licensed those rights to someone else, it would be a very interesting legal debate as two sides might both think they have contractual rights.
I suspect this will end up as a split case - those artists with better / tighter model releases from the original photo shoots won't be on t-shirts, and those who didn't restrict the usage will find themselves as t-shirt decorations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: please release me, let me go....
Obviously if the contracts said nothing of the use of the images, then there's no grounds for a lawsuit and it should be thrown out. The reason for buying the shirts doesn't weigh in at all; Rolling Stone (most likely) paid for the images, so if there's not a contract saying otherwise, the images belong to Rolling Stone and can be used as they see fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: please release me, let me go....
So, it comes down to whether or not a merchandising company can claim some kind of ownership of any image of the band being placed on a T-Shirt. That does not seem easy to argue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: please release me, let me go....
Rolling Stone may argue some sort of fair use, but I think in the end they may be forced to re-license for distribution on a different medium (shirts, not magazines).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: please release me, let me go....
By contract with whom? Are you suggesting Rolling Stone signed contracts with various merchandising companies? That doesn't seem likely, but maybe someone with experience in merchandising or magazine publishing can offer an educated guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: please release me, let me go....
Basically, Rolling Stone, by trying to sell t-shirt (aka, merchandise) with art images on them potentially is in violation of exclusive agreements that the artist may have signed. It doesn't apply to magazine covers, as they are not "merchandise", at least not in the sense of a t-shirt, a hat, or similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: please release me, let me go....
It doesn't matter (for this suit) what the artist signed, it's the merchandisers who are suing Rolling Stone. I don't think they're going to get very far accusing Rolling Stone of violating a contract between Acme Merchandising Inc. and Britney Spears. They aren't a party to the contract, and so cannot breach it. They really need to be suing the artists. Then the artists, if their contract with R.S. permits, can sue the magazine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: please release me, let me go....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exxxcellent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My likeness
As in this comment, the very fact of my posting my comments means that I WANT them to be published in this venue. NOT in some other venue that may not compliment my image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My likeness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
by Ray
Although I believe that copyright is WAY OVERUSED, in this case, I would NOT want my image (or artistry, writing, etc) used to make money for someone else unless I had EXPRESSLY authorized them to do so.
As in this comment, the very fact of my posting my comments means that I WANT them to be published in this venue. NOT in some other venue that may not compliment my image."
Ahh, my first infringement of the day completed. I feel better. Now I can move on with the rest of my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got My Shirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please Release Me, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please Release Me, etc.
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Rolling Stone covers have almost become part of the culture of the music industry in itself never mind the culture of the country. I'm sure we all remember the B+W Janet Jackson cover. Hell I had that one hung on my wall in a frame for a long time.
Discuss......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you pay for and obtain the "hang on the wall" license?
I assume you did not, and therefore you are a thieving pirate terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]