Not sure. I know from Jojo you can get in trouble for using their names like the Prince incident.

>>83045083
>The Prince incident
Go on.

>>83044900
You need their permission, unless you can argue that it wasn't on purpose.

>>83045187
>reading comprehension
Jojo got in trouble with Prince for using names affiliated with Prince and his records.

>>83045083
I'm just curious how deep shit I would be in, legally speaking, if I drew one of the characters in my comic to resemble Gene Hackman

>>83045305
Parody? None at all.

>>83045284
Oh, I thought it was something more. I thought copyright was more loose in Japan, hence every other character being fine.

Was it a localization issue?

>>83045305
The super villain Gene Hackman! He'll hack at any man for precious gene splicing.

>>83045354
Well, the character in question is a corrupt city official and would only physically resemble the actor. It's not meant to be a particularly humorous depiction. I'm not sure what constitutes parody and how to argue it

>>83045227
Did Alex Ross had to get permission from Gregory Peck, Fred McMurray or Timothy Dalton to use their likeness?

>>83045083
Names are trademarks.

>>83044900
Likenesses can be trademarks too. It depends on whether they've trademarked their image (in general terms, they receive automatic protection for their likeness, but it would be hard to prove unless you were specifically naming them and doing something which would affect their reputation - it's really more of a libel than a trademark problem) or are covered by whatever jurisdictions.

In general terms (meaning at your own risk) you could probably use the likeness of any person without getting into trouble, as long as:

>they're not depicted doing something the real individual would not do;

>you're not infringing on their likeness in order to trade on it (ie your sales are helped by the presence of their likeness)

Obviously this is complicated; if an actor wouldn't ever take the kind of role you'd put them in (porn, say) then obviously you've got a problem if they decide to sue. On the other hand if you depicted Tommy Lee Jones as a rude fat old dude or Clint Eastwood shooting a man dead with a six-gun, it's hard for them to argue based on their past roles that you're really harming their image/reputation.

Whereas the more simple aspect is that if you in any way imply that they personally endorse your work (without written proof or something equally solid to say that they do), or you produce a work that trades on their likeness (which they own), then yes, you'd be in the shit.

>>83045574
You're probably fine as long as it's not called Gene Hackman Robs City Hall and you don't market it as a continuation of his works or works in which he has featured.

>>83045354
Parody is not as strong a defense as you'd like to believe. For example, in Campbell v. AcuffRose
Music, Inc., the Supreme Court found that:

>parody whose wide dissemination in the market runs the risk of serving as a substitute for the original or licensed derivatives..., it is more incumbent on one claiming fair use to establish the extent of transformation and the parody’s critical relationship to the original. By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of the original work, the new work’s minimal distribution in the market, the small extent to which it borrows from the original, or other factors, taking parodic aim at an original is a less critical factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to be fair use, as may satire with lesser justification for the borrowing than would otherwise be required.

tl;dr if you're trading on someone else's work it's up to you to prove you aren't, not them to prove you are - you can't just cry "PARODY!" and moonwalk out of court, you have to be able to prove your work is parody. This is true of any Fair Use provision which does not obviously fall under existing case law - anything more complex than an extended quote from another work.

>>83045649
Wait, who did Ross use Dalton's likeness for?

>>83045305
Just give margin for deniability and it's fine. Like, don't trace pictures of him and stuff.