Astronaut Sues Dido For Using His Photo In Album Cover
from the ah,-publicity-rights dept
Ben alerts us to the news that astronaut Bruce McCandless is suing the musician Dido for her album cover on her 2008 album, "Safe Trip Home," which uses a NASA photo of McCandless in space:If this really is a publicity rights claim (
Update: Thanks to all of you for sending me the filing. It's posted below, and it's pretty much what you'd expect. Standard publicity rights claim:
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: album covers, bruce mccandless, dido, publicity rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One small lawsuit for man,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One small lawsuit for man,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One small lawsuit for man,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Importantly...
Oh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I also learned that he is flying an Untethered Manned Maneuvering Unit (UMMU) first used in 1984. Unless this guy is also him. I can't tell, the radiation shield makes it hard to see a face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's like freaking out that Muhammad is in a bear suit and it turns out to be Santa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe it's a NASA image, which should mean it's public domain. Novastock, or any stock repository, should not be able to claim ownership on it, even if they can probably sell it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What was that movie called again?
Oh yeah! Space Cowboys. It also starred John Wayne, Jim Rockford, and that guy who is on the internet, screaming... what's his face.
I couldn't resist this opening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now thats impressive and much more of a story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ben
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ben
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ROFLMAO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ROFLMAO
It would be like me suing someone for using a picture of my house when all they used was picture of a completely unidentifiable brick wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ROFLMAO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The actual legal filing
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/10/tiny-astronaut-sues-big-musician.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whe's Danny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whe's Danny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whe's Danny?
We all deserve a cut of the judgment if the Plaintiff prevails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whe's Danny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whe's Danny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actual Compliant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public figure.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jurisdiction?
I think I remember reading that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"acted in concert with the other defendants with a design, and for the purpose, or injuring Plaintiff and unlawfully benefiting some or all Defendants"
So they sat down and had a meeting and decided to intentionally screw him over?
"36. Recognizing the tremendous value of McCandless' persona, Defendants have sought to link their business and products to him and thereby reap the benefits, for themselves, of the public's good will toward McCandless."
This gave me a good laugh. Sure, they decided to use that picture because of the public's good will toward him. Get over yourself you arrogant little shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I enlarged it 400% and was still unable to make out anything that would identify him. Beyond that size the image becomes to pix-elated that it becomes impossible to tell what color the suit is, let alone who is in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have no idea who the hell this astronaut is ... but at least now I know he has a HUGE ego.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why can't people who are bright and talented find something more productive to do with themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publicity for Dido!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dildo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dildo
Note the *may* infringe. It is not necessarily the case, and I think Dido et al have a pretty strong case in response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a picture of US government property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
overlawyered.com
at least now I know he has a HUGE ego.
...and is apparently having trouble making rent.
Almost certainly, the "Plaintiff" never said any of the words in this complaint
But he signed off on it. He's responsible for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
photo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If a recognizable person appears..."
I would argue that an astronaut in a space suit with a mirrored visor is *COMPLETELY* unrecognizable. There is no possible way that anyone could prove that the person inside that suit is the astronaut in question.
Here is NASA's page for the photo in question:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001087.html
Here is a MUCH higher resolution photo of (supposedly) the same astronaut in an MMU, taken a day earlier:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001156.html
Even on that one, it is impossible to identify the astronaut, as the visor is completely mirrored, and space suits do not have visible name tags on them. (This second one is probably the most famous "astronaut floating free in space" photograph ever; and has been used commercially *MANY* times.)
Hell, I bet the plaintiff didn't even know it was a picture of him for a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If a recognizable person appears..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
read fifth claim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has no rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What rights?
"It is unlawful to falsely claim copyright or other rights in NASA material. "
So McCandless is unable to able to claim 'other rights' on NASA's picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now we know he's a true american
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getty's License is Clear - No CD's or DVD's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually you can not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lol
Grats Dido on the bump in album sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So its ok to rip someone else off as long as its another American !
After all, its so much easier to steal something you want than to do it yourself.
And if you guys honestly believe that because its government funded the results of that funding are public owned or belong in the public domain.
You think the technology the US governemt developes with your tax money is being made freely available to anyone ?
NO ofcourse not..
What if this Dido person was not from the US, would it be bad then that US tax payers are paying for someone else who did not pay tax in your country to benifit from something that cost you collectively quite a bit of money ?
Oh, but its another American, so its ok to screw over your countrymen, because you all get screwed.
Once again, this is just another example of something trying to take advantage of the works of others, with no credit given to the original artist.
Im sure Dido would be just as upset if it was done to her, with her works.
Im not from the US, so if I used that photo, and as I do not pay US taxes would that be OK ?
No it would not, just as its not ok for you to expect a right to anything producted by taxpayers money.
One day you might work out the world does not work that way, and it would really suck if it did.
You dont pay taxes to give you a right to anything you think tax payer money goes too. Really that is quite insane thinking.
The government has all kinds of personal information about you, would you like all that information to be in the public domain ?
If you follow your ill-logic, that would be what is expected after all, the taxpayer pays for the gathering of that information. So why not make it all public ?
No, the world does not work that way.
Are you that type of person, that says when you are pulled over by the police for speeding, "I pay my taxes, so therefore im your boss". To the cop..
I really hope so. LOL
No you pay taxes to keep social order, for services and advancement of your country. Its not a bank where you pay in and after awile you can decide what from them you want to take for yourself..
I wonder sometimes if you guys have actually experienced the REAL WORLD. Or just live in some fantasy land where everything is done just for your personal pleasure and confort ?
Little wonder the US is struggling so badly these days !.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So its ok to rip someone else off as long as its another American !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I use that image too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smithsonian article from 2005
funny - he didn't seem to think he was identifiable in the image 5 years ago when he talked to the Smithsonian. I wonder what changed his mind? maybe his 401K took a hit in the past couple of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Douchebag?
I'm wondering who is the bigger douchebag? Someone who would sue over photo in which no part of his face of body is visible, he has no visible identifying marks, and his entire image is a tiny part of the picture, and the photo is almost certainly public domain, or the lawyer who would file the suit for him.
Just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoped it was a joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue them all!
Please kill me if greed and stupidity makes my day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]