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.

Gina is working those dumb cuffed pants and looking good in them.

She looks damn fine, but I'm not sure how I feel about the hair. I think I like the curls better.

She's one of probably three or four living women who could wear those cuffed pants and look good in them. I like the curls, too, but she looks damn fine in those shots. So does LF.

She's one of probably three or four living women who could wear those cuffed pants and look good in them

I love the idea that you have a separate list of dead women who could rock the look.

I think her hair is verging on too flat, but honestly I barely looked. And man, to make me forget LF is in the picture? Takes some doing.

She is rockin' that look. Dayum, she looks like a movie star.