Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix holograms in the works...
Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:48 PM
Reading that article is like reading about the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan being blown out of the rock wall they were carved into.
You can raise a hologram, but such a thing will lower the music.
I don't want "Jim" to walk up to me and "flip his hair" or whatever. Is he supposed to be a puppet to do as others command?
Jim didn't "sing at" people, nor did he 'sing to' anyone. He sang for himself, to hear his voice and the communication existing with God in those moments.
The truth is that concert-goers don't deserve Jim.
They are gonna set up a tent and try and recreate Woodstock, but without the LSD? Yeah, right! People don't want that... they want techno raves.
What is the ultimate goal? To generate new fans? To provide the old fans with a treat?
I'll tell you what, I don't want that treat.
artist: misc date: 06/13/2012 category: general music news
With news that both Freddie Mercury and Elvis Presley are being resurrected in hologram form following once-dead rapper Tupac’s appearance at Coachella back in April, it’s perhaps unsurprising that a number of other acts are getting on the virtual singer bandwagon.
NME is reporting that both Doors frontman Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix are scheduled for the hologram treatment.
UG plus: remove banner
According to Classic Rock Magazine, Doors manager Jeff Jampol is hoping to create a multimedia experience featuring the band, taking place a tent or a freestanding building and utilising lights, high-quality sound, vibrations, projected imagery and the 3-D figures.
On Morrison’s performance, he had the following to say: "We're trying to get to a point where 3-D characters will walk around... Hopefully, 'Jim Morrison' will be able to walk right up to you, look you in the eye, sing right at you and then turn around and walk away."
Experience Hendrix CEO Janie Hendrix (Jimi’s sister) has been working with a London based company to create a digital version of Jimi for about a year, although was far more guarded in her response to the press: "for us, of course, it's about keeping Jimi authentically correct... There are no absolutes at this point."
The Hendrix estate has been typically guarded with media representations of Jimi. While a Jimi Hendrix biopic, called starring Andre 3000 is reportedly in the works, Experience Hendrix, LLC have been quick to distance themselves from the production:
"Various media outlets have recently published accounts that indicate a feature-length Jimi Hendrix biographical film is nearing production. Experience Hendrix, LLC, the family-owned company entrusted with safeguarding the legacy of Jimi Hendrix and administrator of the Jimi Hendrix music and publishing catalog has made it known many times in the past that no such film, were it to include original music or copyrights created by Jimi Hendrix, can be undertaken without its full participation."
Edited by Defiance, 13 June 2012 - 07:53 PM.
Posted 20 June 2012 - 12:08 AM
Does this article mean that the Morrison and Courson estates can block any proposed use of Jim's image in such a way that is not related to his music? Yes, since a hologram is not related to music in any way.
Marilyn Monroe's classic headshot with her signature (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
Following the acclaimed “beyond the grave” performance of Tupac Shakur together with Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg at the Coachella Music Festival in April, plans are being made for concerts featuring Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix and the Doors. The company developing the Monroe event, Digicon Media, says it is not working with the Monroe estate since it claims it has secured all necessary copyrights.
Clearly, this new trend is a testament to the fact that iconic celebrities offer brands that withstand the test of time. While licensed products from these celebrities have been on store shelves for decades, this new iteration of celebrity licensing actually replicates and can expand upon the original work of celebrities, which casts a spotlight on the murky legal environment of publicity that is worth exploring.
Differences with Copyright Law
Publicity laws grant famous personalities the right to control the commercial exploitation of certain aspects of their identity, such as their names and likenesses. While copyright law grants the creator of an original work certain rights including the right to copy and authorize others to copy the work, to make derivative works, and sell and market the work, publicity rights protect the subject of the work where the subject is a famous person. For example, if a company wishes to use a photograph of Rihanna for an advertisement, it must negotiate a copyright license from the photographer, but it may also have to secure a license from Rihanna herself to commercially exploit her image and likeness pursuant to her publicity rights.
Copyright is governed by a uniform federal law based on the U.S. Constitution’s explicit instruction that Congress has the power to “promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Publicity rights, however, are based on state laws due to our federal system’s default to state sovereignty in the absence of a compelling reason to enact a preemptive federal law.
State Law Variations
Currently, four states recognize publicity rights under both explicit state law and common law legal theories. Sixteen states have established the right of publicity solely through statute, and 10 states have recognized the right solely under common law.
Twelve states (including California) treat publicity rights as a transferable property right that survives a celebrity’s death. Other states, such as New York, treat publicity rights as personal rights that terminate when the celebrity dies. In general, a celebrity’s domicile at the time of death determines which state law applies. But after courts in both New York and Los Angeles determined Monroe’s domicile at the time of death was New York (effectively extinguishing her rights of publicity), California recently revised its publicity law to grant post-mortem rights of publicity to celebrities regardless of domicile at death.
Of the states with post-mortem rights, some only apply to celebrities that pass away after the date of enactment of such states’ laws. Other states retroactively apply their laws to any famous person who has died after a specified date that is sometimes decades before the state’s first enactment of a publicity right law. For example, California first enacted its Celebrities Rights Act in 1985, but, in the aftermath of a prior dispute relating to Monroe, it amended the law to apply to any celebrity that has passed away after January 1, 1938. Further, depending on the state, post-mortem rights may extend for a variety of alternative durations ranging from 10 to 100 years after a celebrity’s death.
The narrowest state statutes cover a celebrity’s name and likeness, and the broadest also cover their voice, signature, photograph, image, distinctive appearance, gestures and mannerisms.
His Hand in Mine (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
First Amendment and Transformative Use
Publicity rights must be balanced against the First Amendment rights of free speech and artistic free expression, including uses of a celebrity’s name or likeness to comment on, criticize or parody them; in connection with news, public affairs, sports broadcasts or accounts; or political campaigns. In response, courts have borrowed the “transformative use” defense from copyright law that is based on the principle that every new work in some way borrows and builds upon what has come before. In particular, courts have held that when a work contains “significant transformative elements” it is deemed more worthy of First Amendment protection and less likely to interfere with the economic interests protected by publicity rights. Unfortunately, there is a wide gulf between a unique original work of art and an unmitigated commercial exploitation such as a depiction of a celebrity’s image on mass market merchandise with no significant transformative contribution. The cases in the middle have led to some expected results and some that are harder to reconcile.
Other Constitutional Issues
State publicity laws may violate the Commerce Clause to the extent they apply to conduct across all states. Similarly, laws that are sufficiently vague as to expose advertisers to potential liability for unintentional resemblances that are deemed to be a use of a celebrity’s “image” or “appearance” may violate the Due Process Clause since it requires fair notice of conduct that will expose a defendant to liability. Consequently, to properly address the wide discrepancies in state publicity laws, as well as the Constitutional issues, it may make sense for Congress to enact a uniform federal right of publicity law.
Edited by Defiance, 20 June 2012 - 12:11 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users