Michael's image, likeness and copyrights: a legal question

morinen

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,074
Points
48
In the light of the recent lawsuit over the "Last photoshoots" documentary, I was thinking about the concept of "Michael's image and likeness" and the Estate's claims for copyrights. Here's what I don't understand:

1. The Estate owns "Michael's image and likeness" and managed to shut down Mann's enterprises due to ownership. If one wants to create a commercial enterprise or product with the name "Michael Jackson" or his picture on it, they have to obtain permission from the estate. Yet there are lots of unauthorized books or documentaries that use "Michael Jackson" in the name, his photo on the cover or footage with him inside. Why doesn't the estate take an issue with that?

2. Hamid Moslehi posted his photos of MJ publicly on his web-site. I'm sure they were made as part of "work for hire" too, but the Estate didn't have an issue with that. Yet they do have an issue with 7 photos in the "Last Photoshoots". What's the difference?

3. Brad Buxer, Steve Porcaro and other Michael's collaborators say that they can't release any music they have with MJ's vocal because the estate owns a copyright. Yet Barry Gibb released "All In Your Name" with MJ's vocal and was selling it commercially - nobody said a word. Does this mean the Estate sanctioned it? Paul Anka released "This is it" as a duet - does this mean the estate sanctioned it?

4. Does the estate own copyright to vocal only or to vocal and music? What if the music was written by someone else and Michael only sang the song?

5. Once a song is released publicly, do musicians have to obtain the Estate's permission to remix the song or change the arrangement? (E.g. now that "She was lovin me" is released, is Cory Rooney allowed to release his new version that he reworked with Taryll?)
 
Last edited:
I can try my best :) but I'm tired and sleepy.

1. The Estate owns "Michael's image and likeness" and managed to shut down Mann's enterprises due to ownership.

they didn't shut down his company, they made a claim against his logo. His companies can operate without that. Also the book etc he released included copyrighted paintings and pictures. That's why they were able to stop such books. Technically Mann could have removed the infringing material, change his logo and republish KJ's book. However his main content was infringing photos and material from Vaccaro vaults, that's why he gave up most probably.

If one wants to create a commercial enterprise or product with the name "Michael Jackson" or his picture on it, they have to obtain permission from the estate.

absolutely. Estate is the only party who can commercially benefit from MJ name or authorize others to benefit from it - most probably for a fee or profit share.

Yet there are lots of unauthorized books or documentaries that use "Michael Jackson" in the name, his photo on the cover or footage with him inside. Why doesn't the estate take an issue with that?

that's journalistic use. anyone can write a book, article, news story about Michael Jackson and use his name during. He's the subject of the book. That's why there's millions of unauthorized books about any famous people. it's also freedom of speech. they can't stop anyone from writing books about public figures. (If the famous person/public figure is alive they can have a defamation claim if the book is negative. After death defamation claim isn't possible. )

Who owns photos is important. Some photos are owned by the photographer and photographer can license it's use. Some photos could be paid by Michael/his companies, meaning photographers are work for hire and such photos would require permission from MJ Estate. Same logic applies to the video footages. Some images might even be public domain - owners released them to public with no fee/royalty with no permission required.

(edited to add side note: I cannot speak for Michael or Estate but I know some music groups release publicity shots as public domain in the hopes that media will use them as they are free but keep in mind commercially using public domain images can still be problematic due to image and likeliness. for example a music group might release a photo as public domain as they hope the media will use it in news stories, however if someone takes the photo and makes and sells a tshirt with it - aka commercial use - they can bring a lawsuit based on image and likeliness claim.)

For example imagine a paparazzi shot a picture. He owns the rights to it - as Michael had nothing to do with that photo. You can license it and use it in your book. Or Latoya can use a picture she's taken in her book - gives her ownership. If you had taken a photo with MJ, you can use it as it's your photo. But let's say if you want to use a photo from a MJ Productions photo shoot, you'll need Estate approval or if you don't get their approval they can have a copyright claim against you. Again same logic with the footages.

2. Hamid Moslehi posted his photos of MJ publicly on his web-site. I'm sure they were made as part of "work for hire" too, but the Estate didn't have an issue with that. Yet they do have an issue with 7 photos in the "Last Photoshoots". What's the difference?

Moslehi claims his work was never for hire check Pg5 item 26 - http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/hero-videographer-sues-jackson

I would also imagine - assumption on my part- that with a commercial release of a copyrighted material it allows Estate to make a claim for damages. At least in the Mann case, Mann was earning money by using pictures didn't belong to him which allowed Estate to ask for those damages.

So as you can see as far as the photos/videos goes who has the ownership can depend based on the situation and based on the situation Estate might or might not have control of copyright.

3. Brad Buxer, Steve Porcaro and other Michael's collaborators say that they can't release any music they have with MJ's vocal because the estate owns a copyright.

Every writer, performer shares copyright. Estate controls Michael's share so yes they cannot release it without Estate's consent. Estate also might need their consent to release such songs as well - unless of course they were "work for hire" and have no rights/their rights were transferred to Michael (and now Estate).


Yet Barry Gibb released "All In Your Name" with MJ's vocal and was selling it commercially - nobody said a word. Does this mean the Estate sanctioned it? Paul Anka released "This is it" as a duet - does this mean the estate sanctioned it?

Probably yes. I think I remember Gibb talking about Estate so he might have gotten permission. The other alternative is that Michael signed a release form when alive and gave up his rights and/or permission to the other party. If they have such, they don't need Estate's permission.

4. Does the estate own copyright to vocal only or to vocal and music?

whatever Michael contributed to they own copyright.

What if the music was written by someone else and Michael only sang the song?

by music do you also include lyrics? generally music and lyrics are seen 50-50. want to give a more specific scenario? This is way to general to answer.

5. Once a song is released publicly, do musicians have to obtain the Estate's permission to remix the song or change the arrangement? (E.g. now that "She was lovin me" is released, is Cory Rooney allowed to release his new version that he reworked with Taryll?)

still need permission. it would be unauthorized and could result in a copyright claim.
 
Last edited:
2. Hamid Moslehi posted his photos of MJ publicly on his web-site. I'm sure they were made as part of "work for hire" too, but the Estate didn't have an issue with that. Yet they do have an issue with 7 photos in the "Last Photoshoots". What's the difference?

I remember there was a book announced with photos on Amazon from Hamid Moslehi, but it was never released, so I assume he was not allowed to use the photos comercially and it was cancelled..
 
ivy;4026314 said:
I can try my best :)
Moslehi claims his work was never for hire check Pg5 item 26 - http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/hero-videographer-sues-jackson

.

I think that is only limited to the rebuttal- footage, because he was not paid for it. He called his job himself a contracted employment



But in generally he did he did a job where he was hired and paid for the use of the footage.


Here is a part of his testimony from April 26., 2005:

(DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. AUCHINCLOSS):
Q. Have you ever been contracted by MJJ
3 Productions for any of your photography work?
4 A. MJJ Production has used my services from
5 1996, I believe, till 2003.
6 Q. And what type of services have you provided
7 to MJJ Productions?
8 A. Still photography and video production.
9 Q. How many projects have you worked on with
10 MJJ Productions?
11 A. I would say between maybe 40 to 50 projects.
12 Q. And if you can tell me, give me an example,
13 or a couple of examples, of the nature of the work
14 that you do for MJJ Productions.
15 A. Could you be more specific to that? Like --
16 Q. Well, do you ever receive still photography
17 assignments?
18 A. Sure.
19 Q. What type?
20 A. It could have been a birthday party. It
21 could have been family portrait pictures. It could
22 have been concert.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Or documentaries.
25 Q. Same question for videography.
26 A. Same.
27 Q. Same answers?
28 A. Same answers. 7633
1 Q. Okay. When you work for MJJ Productions,
2 how do you become aware that there is a job for you
3 there? Who informs you that MJJ Productions wants
4 to employ your services?
5 A. Typically I would get a call from Mr.
6 Jackson's personal assistant at MJJ Production. And
7 basically I would check my schedule. Upon my
8 availability, I would book that job and take it from
9 there.
10 Q. What do you understand MJJ Productions to
11 be?
12 A. I believe it's Michael Joe Jackson
13 Productions.
14 Q. Okay. Michael Jackson's production company?
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. Okay. And when you say “Michael Jackson,”
17 you're referring to the gentleman seated in -- at
18 the table to my right?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And when you shoot video work, what type of
21 documentaries? You mentioned that you would shoot
22 video documentaries. Give me an example.
23 A. For example, Mr. Jackson would take a trip
24 to London to do -- for, like, a fund-raising event.
25 And I would shoot basically fans, media, everything
26 that goes around it. And including the event
27 itself.
28 Q. Would Mr. Jackson ever personally call you 7634
1 to set up one of these contracts that you'd do for
2 him?
3 A. Maybe a few times.
4 Q. Okay. And when I say “contract,” I mean
5 you're a contractor, contracted employment?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Okay. Did you ever do any public relations
8 type of photography for Mr. Jackson?
9 A. In what sense? Like --
10 Q. Videos or still photographs that were going
11 to be used for public relations purposes.
12 A. Sure.
13 Q. How many times, if you can approximate?
14 A. Maybe 20, 25.
 
Last edited:
I have a question about Michael's image and likeness.
Last weekend I watched this documentary
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1634036/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm
Note, I wanted to poke holes in my eyes after watching it, so I don't recommend it to anyone:puke:

It is UK documentary and they interviewed some rubbish people for it, and they also showed footages from TII and other images of MJ. Can they use in UK Michael image and likeness without permission from the estate?
 
I have a question about Michael's image and likeness.
Last weekend I watched this documentary
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1634036/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm
Note, I wanted to poke holes in my eyes after watching it, so I don't recommend it to anyone:puke:

It is UK documentary and they interviewed some rubbish people for it, and they also showed footages from TII and other images of MJ. Can they use in UK Michael image and likeness without permission from the estate?

It's not important in which country the footage was taken in. It's important who took it (paparazzi, official press conference etc.) and in which situation (i.e. public appearance). Quite a bit of TII (a few minutes) is freely available for editorial use, too.
 
It's not important in which country the footage was taken in. It's important who took it (paparazzi, official press conference etc.) and in which situation (i.e. public appearance). Quite a bit of TII (a few minutes) is freely available for editorial use, too.

Ok, I didn't know that about TII.
I cannot remember whether they used Michael's music (defo not going to watch it again) but at least they would need permission from the estate or Sony to use it.
 
As for photos - Estate doesn't own or control all MJ photos. Actually photographers can be the copyright owners and license photos.
For TII - It is possible that they licensed TII portions during its release and now reused it in their documentary.
 
Back
Top