tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post2616720319202502370..comments2024-03-10T10:55:11.119+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Seeing stars! Some reflections on Audrey Hepburn v CaleffiMarie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-56185993480202935722015-02-27T11:43:38.662+00:002015-02-27T11:43:38.662+00:00I don’t agree at all with the above comments.
The...I don’t agree at all with the above comments. <br />The judgment of the Court of Milan is blameless because has correctly understood the meaning of the italian law as for the protection of a person’s portrait as a right.<br />As said in the first comment Article 96 of the Italian Copyright Law and Article 10 of the Italian Civil Code establish that a person's portrait cannot be displayed, reproduced or put in the market without the person's consent, or the heir's consent. <br />In the past (i.e. Dalla’s case) the italian Court has acknowledged that even the single elements that in the audience’s perception represent and evoke a famous person must be protected as its portrait. That’s the reason why in Caleffi’s case the use of a lookalike, dressed and posed as in one of the most famous image from Breakfast at Tiffany’s, was considered like the original Audrey Hepburn’s image. <br />Therefore, worthless are the above considerations on the differences between the person of Audrey Hepburn and her character Holly. Caleffi has not commercially used or recall the character but has only used,without the consent of her heirs, the portrait of Audrey Hepburn. <br />To prevailthe character on the person wouldexclude anyright ofpublicity andany protection of the person and of its portrait.<br />Avv. Raffaella Aghemonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-35272063090313584792015-02-17T09:36:06.399+00:002015-02-17T09:36:06.399+00:00Based on the facts given to us in this blog postin...Based on the facts given to us in this blog posting and the earlier one on the IPKat blog, I agree that the Milan Court's decision is perverse. <br />An individual's 'personality' is surely the physical features, behaviour and mannerisms etc by which they are known and recognised as an individual. An actor undertaking a role, by definition, seeks to inhabit a different personality, albeit one that may arise out of that artist's imagination, in collaboration with an author and a director. <br />To that extent, the confusion between Holly and Audrey is bizarre. Since no photograph of the Miss Hepburn was used, there is absolutely no part of Miss Hepburn's personality present in the Caleffi advert. If one assumes that the US case of <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/update-in-innocence-of-muslims.html" rel="nofollow">Cindy Lee Garcia</a> was good law (which I don't) then conceivably Miss Hepburn's performance as Holly Golightly was worthy of copyright protection, but again that right was not infringed here because articles of costume are not a creative part of an actor's performance, since they will generally have been created and provided by a designer or costume department. The actor may use such things clothing and props to assist them in rendering a character, but to claim that this somehow imbues the said costume with any copyrightable features, is much like an artist claiming copyright in his brushes. <br />Litigants (or more likely inventive lawyers) who test the courts with cases such as this one, the Garcia case already referred to and the <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-return-of-sherlock-holmes.html" rel="nofollow">Sherlock Holmes</a> case just to mention three recent ones, are attempting to distort the balance between the need to protect the creativity of an author and society's right to be enriched by the stimulation of further creativity in others.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.com