Id. person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.... 77. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 8 652C (1977). 78. See R. Greenstone, A Coat of Paint on the Past? Impediments to Distribution of Colorized Black and White Motion Pictures, Vol. 5, No. 2 Entertainment & Sports Lawyer 12, 17 Cohen, Duration, 24 UCLA L Rev 1180 (1977). 84. Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal. 3d 813, 820, 160 Cal. Rptr. 323, 327 (1979), citing . Prosser, The Law of Torts 8 117, at 814-15 (4th ed. 1971). 85. See Greenestone, supra note 78, at 19-20. 86. While most commonly cited as Section 43(a), it is actually 17 U.S.C. 8 1125(a) which provides: Any person who shall affix, apply, or annex, or use in connection with any goods or services, or any container or containers for goods, a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending falsely to describe or represent the same, and shall cause such goods or services to enter into commerce, and any person who shall with knowledge of the falsity of such designation of origin or description or representation cause or procure the same to be transported or used in commerce or deliver the same to any carrier to be transported or used, shall be liable to a civil action by any person 24 Id. doing business in the locality falsely indicated as that of origin or in the region in which said locality is situated, or by any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false 91. The majority and minority in Gilliam in fact bickered about what level of disclaimer might finally constitute an effective disclaimer, i.e. one disclaimer at the beginning of the broadcast or several disclaimers throughout. 538 F.2d at 25, n.13 and 27, n.1. In spite of this difference, it does seem apparent that a disclaimer would at some level become "effective" and thus prevent a Lanham Act violation. 92. See supra note 25 and accompanying text. 93. See Art Laws Don't Protect Films From Alteration, supra note 2. These states are New York, California, Massachusetts and Louisiana. Id. Id. 94. 17 U.S.C. 8 202 provides: Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object. 95. A typical statute, The California Art Preservation Act, provides in relevant part: No person, except an artist who owns and possesses a work of fine art which the artist has created, shall intentionally commit, or authorize the intentional commission of, any physical defacement, mutilation, alteration, or destruction of a work of fine art. Cal. Civil Code 8 987(c)(1). 96. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c. 231, 8 85S(b) defines "fine art" as: "any original work of visual or graphic art of any media which shall include, but not limited to, any painting, print, drawing, sculpture, craft object, photograph, audio or video tape, film, hologram, or any combination thereof, of recognized quality". Id. 97. See supra note 96. 98. The Massachusetts Act denies protection to "art... created by an employee within the scope of his employment". |