When we sell clips from Pride and Prejudice, we need Colin Firth's permission to sell scenes with Darcy in them, etc.

You need to get that every time? If Colin gets pissy about the whole Austen thing, he could crack down on having his clips ever sold again?

whenever someone is credited as "talent," you need their permission for reuse

I can see how that works for moving pictures, but for stills ... seems a wobbly arena.

If anything, their image is their livelihood, and should be afforded more protection, not less.

In principle, that's true-- take for example Spike Lee's suit against Spike TV (the reasoning behind it, if not the result). I can see the difference however from a potential profit perspective-- it's my right to control what I intentionally put out there for my image (for example, a commercial that used my image to sell something if I was famous) but I certainly didn't put any work into disseminating pictures of myself having brunch. If that makes sense.

This is not my field of expertise but I think that for say, MTV Networks, getting releases from everyone they film is just the best way for them to avoid any liability, but not necessarily a requirement.

Whenever we watch Cops, I find myself saying in an awed voice when someone does something egregiously stupid, "And this guy signed a release to let them put this on television." Never ceases to amaze me.

This is not my field of expertise but I think that for say, MTV Networks, getting releases from everyone they film is just the best way for them to avoid any liability, but not necessarily a requirement.

A lot of events that I've gone to have release forms you have to sign before you are admitted. All of them have been the usual "You might be photographed or filmed when you're here, just so you know" thing.

And yes, I know people who have, at the last minute, decided not to attend those events because of that. They don't want to take the risk of pictures of them at an 'alternative lifestyle' event possibly becoming public.

I certainly didn't put any work into disseminating pictures of myself having brunch

Thanks, Britney.

From my thinking -- isn't it that me or my representatives are the only ones who get to put work into disseminating me? Even if someone puts the work in for the dissemination, they're making money off me.

I'm thinking of those eBayed photo keyrings, of which Colin (Ferguson, not Firth) was one actor represented. Is that person stealing from the photographer of the original picture, or from Colin? If they were candids, are they stealing?

A lot of events that I've gone to have release forms you have to sign before you are admitted. All of them have been the usual "You might be photographed or filmed when you're here, just so you know" thing.

I've also seen signs to that effect in public places such as airports. Something along the lines of, "We're filming something here. But going past this sign, you're consenting to being filmed."

You need to get that every time?

Yep, because it depends on who we're selling it to. (And technically, our clients are the ones getting permission. Talent releases aren't our job.)

getting releases from everyone they film is just the best way for them to avoid any liability, but not necessarily a requirement

Exactly.

I was gonna say. In my end of the pool, you get a release any time a lawyer craps her pants. Which, among our lawyers, is often.

Actually, I think that pretty much summarizes the corporate end of copyright law, too. Thou shalt crap thy pants unless thou hast a formal permissions contract.

I'm thinking of those eBayed photo keyrings, of which Colin (Ferguson, not Firth) was one actor represented. Is that person stealing from the photographer of the original picture, or from Colin? If they were candids, are they stealing?

Probably stealing from both. I'm not sure what the distinction is between selling a candid to the tabs and profiting off some kind of consumer good made from a candid, but if I were to guess, it would be the confusion aspect.

Trademark law is partly based on the right of someone who makes a good (which could be their own image) to keep the consumer from being confused about the source of that good. If I sold a picture of Britney brunching to a tabloid, you are not confused about whether or not that picture comes from Britney; most likely it doesn't. However, if I sold keychains with her likeness on them, you could think it came from her, which would dilute* the power of her brand.

*I'm not using dilution here in the legal sense.

All that having been said, Gina is working those dumb cuffed pants and looking good in them.

Hmmph.