Commercial Use of Political Figures Images - I'm a bit confused...

[PacifierCity]

I had this great idea to create a bunch of products that utilized political figures.  The use would not be to promote their political efforts, but is not defamatory or anything along those lines.  I started doing a little research about the use of their images for commercial use and found that they do have rights over the use of their image when it comes to products that they are placed on.  If one wishes to use their image, even publicly taken photos, then you need to get their permission to do so.  Note that the websites that I came upon, were from law offices or similar, did note that most politicians won't bother to come after you because the publicity is usually worth it.  But that does not make it legal.

I did have one product, made awhile ago, that featured a past president, that had sold a few times... but after reading everything I've read, I deleted the product.  But it passed muster with who ever screens the design for production and was printed and sent to the customer.  But from what I have read, it shouldn't have.

Caricatures are different than actual photos and from what I can tell, those are OK.  But using actual photos for my own profit is not.  Unless I have that individuals permission to do so.

When searching the MP there are tons and tons of products that appear at the very top of search results if you search current or recent political figures.  I am confused because those products have most likely sold and just like the product I had, and they did not get flagged.

Could it be that Zazzle has retained permission from these public figures to sell images of them?  Could it be that certain designers have?  I have a hard time imagining that the current or former President would give their consent to a designer or to multiple designers to use their image for their own profit.  Especially when it is just their image placed on a ... dart board or puzzle or something similar. 

I really like the idea that I have, but fear that I would be breaking the law by pursuing it.  I was curious if some of you could shed light on the subject.  I really only spent about an hour researching the subject and probably should have saved url's so I could site them here... but I didn't.  If I remember correctly I started searching something like commercial use of images of political figures.  And note that this only covers actual photos of them.  Yard signs, etc that are designed for upcoming races etc are just fine as they are only using their names... at least from what I understand from what I've read.  But I seem to remember a conversation or too in the old forums saying that we can use images of political figures with out worry... but I don't think that is true...

Your thoughts?

PC

................................

[PenguinPower]

It depends on where the photo comes from - soooo, if that photo of a past president comes from a government source - so taken by a White House photographer it is the property of the people, works by U.S. government employees in the course of their official duties are public domain.  You can use it, even to make a profit. If the photo you are attempting to use was taken by someone else, someone not being paid for the work by the government, you will certainly be running afoul of the copyright of the photographer who took it... 

[idraw]

@PacifierCity 
You said…”using actual photos for my own profit is not.  Unless I have that individuals permission to do so.”
So you are right. Basically from the several law sites I checked, it boils down to—-Whoever took the photo owns the copyright. Info that  you find on the internet about who took it/who owns it can be extremely  inaccurate and misleading. Trying to figure out whether it is a government photo or non government  photographer would be a huge pain. To me it would be too risky, it would only take one serious lawsuit to destroy everything.
Here is one legal site discussing it—-
<https://uscopyrightattorneys.com/copyright-litigation/photograph-infringement/copyright-infringement...>

[PacifierCity]

From: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/trademarks-publicity-and-the-presidency

"Presidents and the Right of Publicity

Individuals have the right to control the way their names and likenesses are used for commercial purposes, such as selling products or services. This is known as a right of publicity. State laws govern the right of publicity, and that means the rights can vary somewhat from one place to another. The right of publicity continues for as long as a person is alive. In some states, like California, it can be passed down to a deceased person's estate.

Because of the right of publicity, presidents can file a lawsuit to prevent their names and images from being used without permission for advertisements, endorsements, and other commercial purposes. President Obama, for example, objected early on to blatant attempts to make money off of his name, including a Times Square billboard showing him wearing a clothing manufacturer's jacket. But under the First Amendment, public figures such as presidents can't prevent their names or pictures from being used for other reasons, such as news reporting, commentary, parody, or education.

When it comes to bobbleheads, Chia Pets, and other random products that are clearly using a president's name or face to make a quick buck, rights of publicity can be hard to enforce. Manufacturers and sellers are often based overseas. You could argue that Trump toilet paper is protected political commentary, or that the Chia Pet parodies Trump's unique hairstyle.

As a practical matter, politicians rarely object to having other people use their name and likeness on products. It's too easy to cause a social media backlash that could hurt them politically. Politicians also don't want to be viewed as hindering free speech, or picking petty battles while they are supposed to be running the country.

Does this mean you're free to launch a line of presidential bottle openers? Not necessarily. A president's name and image can be subject to several types of intellectual property, even if the president has been dead for centuries. A lawyer can advise you on the trademarks, copyrights, and rights of publicity that may apply to your project."

This bit seems to indicate that one does not have the right to use a Presidents image in order to profit without there permission.  Regardless of the source...

IDK, really.  This is a topic I'm really curious about.  I'll pass on my idea as to me at least, it seems I would need the political figures permission to profit by using their image.

PC

.......................

[PacifierCity]

This is another interesting read: https://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/rights-of-publicity-and-privacy.html

"The bottom line

Privacy and publicity issues must be dealt with separate from, and in addition to, copyright. If you intend to use a person’s image, likeness, voice or signature commercially, make sure you get permission first."

[PenguinPower]

It can most certainly be a fine line. Using someone's likeness for advertising or endorsement gets into a whole new and different can of worms...

[Windy]

Way back when I was doing political stuff, I used to scan Whitehouse.gov and use  images from that site, which, as @PenguinPower  says, belong to The People. I sold a number of bumper stickers with those images and never had one taken down. I had read that this was legal because of these images being property of the people. But the entire area of image use which you bring up here is very complicated, so it's just as well I am not in that line of design anymore.