Does an artist need to get permission to sell art of famous people?

February 2, 2011 12:48 PM

If I create an original piece of artwork based on a famous person and then sell prints, do I have to get that person's permission?

I know that there are cases where people can get sued for using someone's likeness, but wasn't sure if this counted.

posted by thebwit to Media & Arts (4 answers total)

You don't. Notable example, Britney sculpture. Though if you are copying a particular photograph or licensed image of them, that could be problematic (see the Shepherd Fairey Obama debacle).
posted by hermitosis at 1:08 PM on February 2, 2011

Agreed. You don't. As another example, there's Brandon Bird.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 1:11 PM on February 2, 2011

I don't think there's necessarily a black and white answer to this question. Copyright law is incredibly complicated and some companies and people of means can and will destroy you with litigation regardless of the validity of their case. From my own experience I can say that you can generally get away with whatever you want to do in art provided that you're not getting alot of attention or making enough money to make suing you worthwhile.

If you look into it just about every prominent pop artist (warhol, koons, etc,) has been sued at some point, but if your an emerging to mid level artist i wouldn't worry about it.
posted by Fluff at 6:03 PM on February 2, 2011

It depends on the person. They can sue you whether they have a winning case or not. Some people are sue happy. If they're dead and have and estate, they could sue too. You're also more likely to trigger a suit if you portray that person in a less than flattering light, or if the image could be considered to be endorsing something or someone without their permission.

But in general you're okay.
posted by Ookseer at 9:09 PM on February 2, 2011