Getty & Dido being Sued by astronaut

D

Dave Stone

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,382
Edit My Images
No
Thought this may be of interest.

Pop singer Dido being sued by retired NASA astronaut
(CNS) Posted Saturday October 2, 2010 - 9:22am

Pop singer Dido is being sued by retired NASA astronaut Bruce McCandless II for allegedly using a photo of his 1984 space flight on an album cover without permission, according to court papers obtained Friday.

In the complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, McCandless claims the photograph showing him flying freely about 325 feet from the cargo bay of the space shuttle Challenger was misappropriated by Sony Music Entertainment and others for use as the cover of Dido's 2008 album "Safe Trip Home.'

A call for comment to a Sony Music spokeswoman after regular business hours was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, also names Getty Images Inc. and the London-born singer under her full name, Florian Cloud de Bounevialle O'Malley Armstrong.
 
A little worrying this: as he's the subject of the image, not the copyright owner, which is presumably NASA, I'm a little puzzled as to why he's bringing the suit and not NASA...

If this is gen, then it has far-reaching implications for us all...subjects owning the rights to usage?
 
from NASAs website

If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services. If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person

pretty sure you can't see that it's him in the shot unless you have the eyes of a hawk!
 
Last edited:
Arkady said:
A little worrying this: as he's the subject of the image, not the copyright owner, which is presumably NASA, I'm a little puzzled as to why he's bringing the suit and not NASA...

If this is gen, then it has far-reaching implications for us all...subjects owning the rights to usage?
Click to expand...



I doubt if it's anything to do with copyright more a model release type issue.

A bit like me taking your pic and using it as advertising for a sex shop lol
 
assuming as they named Getty, they must of had the releases etc from the images owners
 
boyfalldown said:
assuming as they named Getty, they must of had the releases etc from the images owners
Click to expand...

But if NASAs image terms are as stated:

If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services. If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person

the person is not identifiable so would they need a release?
 
The Guardian (click for article):


 because the Nasa astronaut does not own the rights to the photograph, he is not suing for copyright infringement. Instead, he claims his "persona" was used without permission to help sell Dido's album.

Although McCandless is a tiny white dot on the cover of Safe Trip Home, released in 2008, the astronaut insists he is identifiable.
Click to expand...

Really? :lol:

Didos-Safe-Trip-Home-albu-006.jpg
 
joescrivens said:
But if NASAs image terms are as stated:

If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services. If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person

the person is not identifiable so would they need a release?
Click to expand...

if this is true, and looking at the album cover the person suing could only be described as 'taking the p***'.

I think they were looking for something to sue for, and correct use,or not, of images makes no difference in this case
 
stu_the_flat said:
what are the international... sorry intergalatic laws on photography? Or anything for that matter?

Stuart
Click to expand...

/pedant

Pretty sure that it's only interplanetary at the most - to the best of my knowedge every NASA spaceflight has still been in our own solar system, nevermind into another galaxy.

/pedant off
;)
 
WTF - only in America!
 
Total tosh, NASA are clearly the copyright owner in this situation and seem to have made allowances for it's public use, no doubt because it's overwhelmingly in the public interest for these to be made available to the general public.

Whilst this is commercial use you can't say that Mr McCandless is identifiable.
 
I think I might sue McCandless actually as I believe it was me that was up there floating at that particular time, not him!
 
A bit pointless as I would expect the record company to market the album and be the ones responsible for choosing the artwork not the artist.

I can see that one in court
Judge "Now, Ms Dido why did you choose the picture of Bruce McCandless for your album?"

Dido "I didn't"

Judge "Case dismissed"
Click to expand...
:D
 
joescrivens said:
from NASAs website

for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity
Click to expand...


Surely he cant go with that.. how do you do somehting as momentus as that then claim it was private or no publicity.? "OK I will do it but nobody watch OK?"
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Yeah, could be anyone floating around up there :lol:
Click to expand...

The court has to apply a reasonable assumption to this, in my mind you could ask 10,000 people in the street who this is and none of them would be able to tell you. Clearly not identifiable to the general public beyond 'oh an astronaut'.
 
I think that on the grounds it is quite an iconic photo, and there is a quite small list of people who it could be walking in space, you could argue that it is using his image to sell the product.

I doubt it would be hard to find the number of US astronaughts who have spacewalked, and whittle it down from there.
 
gingerweasel said:
The court has to apply a reasonable assumption to this, in my mind you could ask 10,000 people in the street who this is and none of them would be able to tell you. Clearly not identifiable to the general public beyond 'oh an astronaut'.
Click to expand...

If you Google the astronaut's name that particular image comes up, ergo he is identifiable. The image though must have been licenced by NASA to Getty, so :shrug:

Edit: or maybe not :suspect:
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
Surely he cant go with that.. how do you do somehting as momentus as that then claim it was private or no publicity.? "OK I will do it but nobody watch OK?"
Click to expand...

But they don't preform space walks so that some one can sell more albums

Isn't that a photo of fartherest space walk ever performed? that makes it quite identifable.

Stuart
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The same could be said of anyone though. In this case only a finite number of individuals have been into space and only one made the first untethered free flight.
Click to expand...

But in order for someone to be identifiable surely you have to be able to identify without needing to look at who else has done something. You can't see who he is, and he's only identifiable after some research into who else it could have been.

the photo is no more idenitfiable than this one is

http://www.space.com/images/v_untethered_spacewalk_02,0.jpg

it's someone else in a space suit and thats about it.
 
joescrivens said:
But in order for someone to be identifiable surely you have to be able to identify without needing to look at who else has done something. You can't see who he is, and he's only identifiable after some research into who else it could have been.

the photo is no more idenitfiable than this one is

http://www.space.com/images/v_untethered_spacewalk_02,0.jpg

it's someone else in a space suit and thats about it.
Click to expand...


So, if I used a picture of, say Elvis, in a similar way, in some deep, dark part of the world where they'd never heard of him, then that would be ok by your reasoning, as the locals would have to do "some research" to be able to identify him?
 
Flash In The Pan said:
So, if I used a picture of, say Elvis, in a similar way, in some deep, dark part of the world where they'd never heard of him, then that would be ok by your reasoning, as the locals would have to do "some research" to be able to identify him?
Click to expand...

You've just jumped to a completely different example.

In the picture of elvis you could see his face so he is identifiable. Whether you know who he is or not is completely different. If I showed someone the space photo and then 5 headshots of astronauts one of which was the real astronaut you wouldn't be able to say who was in the suit unless you recognized the image and happened to know what the astronaut looked like.

In this image there is no evidence that this guy is even in his suit except for the fact that it has been documented so. He can't actually prove this is him and not his friend Robert Stewart who also did the walk.
 
joescrivens said:
You've just jumped to a completely different example.

In the picture of elvis you could see his face so he is identifiable. Whether you know who he is or not is completely different. If I showed someone the space photo and then 5 headshots of astronauts one of which was the real astronaut you wouldn't be able to say who was in the suit unless you recognized the image and happened to know what the astronaut looked like.

In this image there is no evidence that this guy is even in his suit except for the fact that it has been documented so. He can't actually prove this is him and not his friend Robert Stewart who also did the walk.
Click to expand...

It's (apparently :shrug:) a famous photograph, so the assumption has to be that McCandless feels that he is identifiable....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
It's (apparently :shrug:) a famous photograph, so the assumption has to be that McCandless feels that he is identifiable....
Click to expand...

Never seen it before .... fame is not the same being identifiable through an image.... famous or not!

God Bless America
 
chuckles said:
Never seen it before .... fame is not the same being identifiable through an image.... famous or not!

God Bless America
Click to expand...


Neither had I, but then I wonder if you stopped 10 random people in the street and showed them this famous pic they'd be able to identify the photographer, subject or location.

2197296879_6023e88d8d.jpg
 
ha ha! Easy peasy..... Adolf Hitler in a bathroom :bonk:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
If you Google the astronaut's name that particular image comes up, ergo he is identifiable. The image though must have been licenced by NASA to Getty, so :shrug:

Edit: or maybe not :suspect:
Click to expand...

Almost certainly not a copyright issue. As a US government body, their photographs are automatically in the public domain.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html

NASA Photo Guidelines said:
As a government entity, NASA does not license the use of NASA materials or sign licensing agreements.

Restrictions

NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA.
Click to expand...

However

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/Advertising_Guidelines.html

NASA Regulations for Advertising Requests said:
Many NASA images and most film and video footage are in the public domain can be used for advertising purposes. However, there are rules regarding the appearance of astronauts or NASA employees or names in commercial activities. Astronauts or employees who are currently employed by NASA cannot have their likenesses or names displayed on any commercial products, advertisements or commercial product packaging. Astronauts and NASA employees who are retired from the Agency can grant permission for the use of their likenesses or names, but that permission may be subject to a fee. For deceased astronauts or employees, their families must grant permission for use of their images or names.
Click to expand...

I guess the case will revolve around whether it is his likeness.

And indeed it does

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...tronaut-over-use-of-space-flight-picture.html

Bloomberg said:
The suit doesn’t allege copyright infringement, only infringement of his persona.
Click to expand...

You can see the court filing here.
 
I think Mr. McCandless should just take a safe trip to the retirement home :lol:

He's probably just trying to bolster his pension. Working in the public sector, I might have to try that one in a few years :gag:

Now where did I put my spaceship :D
 
Bruce McCandless interview with the Smithsonian Magazine, August 2005.

McCandless, who lives in Conifer, Colorado, with Bernice, his wife of 45 years, says a goofy version of the famous photograph of him hangs in their home. It shows their grown daughter poking her head through the cut-out visor in a life-size reproduction at a Seattle space museum. The subject's anonymity, he says, is its best feature: "I have the sun visor down, so you can't see my face, and that means it could be anybody in there. It's sort of a representation not of Bruce McCandless, but mankind."
Click to expand...

How long before Dido's defence lawyers find that statement?

Oops! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top