This is a strange one. I've used an image of Phil Woolas from his dodgy leaflet for a satirical purpose (a mug), and the design has been rejected by the online company on grounds of privacy and infringement of image rights:
"Unfortunately we could not admit them for your shop because they infringe on the personal rights of Phil Woolas. These basically state that any image with his photo or name on it that does specifically refer to his person must be authorized by him. " My question: are election leaflets in the public domain, or does that mean that the leaflets with rivals' photos and pics of rivals' leaflets are technically illegal? I'd have thought that my mug is covered by parody/satire exceptions and/or news reporting of a matter of public interest. It's a completely trivial dispute, and there are probably grey areas, but I'd like to have a better idea what the legal position is. Pics here if you are interested: http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2010/11/16/spreadshirt-co-uk-we-wont-sell-offensive-phil-woolas-mug/ While I'm raising the legal question, does anyone know the formal status of party logos. For example, there was a rash of "I agree with Nick" stuff back in April and I'm thinking that *most* of those should have had formal approval for use of the logo, but in practice it doesn't matter usually: http://www.liberal-vision.org/2010/04/20/i-agree-with-nick-t-shirtseverywhere/ Are there any cases where one party has taken action over copyright in another's leaflets? Rgds Matt Wardman -- "The plural of anecdote is not data" Politics: http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/ Local Blogs: http://www.nutshell.org.uk/ Professional: http://www.mattwardman.co.uk/ Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/mattwardman _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
