Lapas attēli


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).


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

[blocks in formation]

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).


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



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

[blocks in formation]

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.


See supra note 25 and accompanying text.


See Art Laws Don't Protect Films From Alteration, supra

note 2. These states are New York, California, Massachusetts and

Louisiana. 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


[ocr errors]

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".

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »