A bit about unlawful use of likeness:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another
Here are the deets. The biggest issue is with advertising. You take my picture and don't compensate me or get my permission, and you use it to sell pies, then I've got a case. But for other stuff? Not so fast.
So what I am looking at is #2. Reporting is carved out as a rather specific exception.
In addition, when #2 isn't for a commercial purpose, the issue is generally for a negative purpose (but that's not as broad as it might sound). E. g. a professor created a bunch of email addresses with the parts of names of people he didn't like at his college. He then applied for jobs for those people, elsewhere, and thoughtfully added links to his own site where he wrote nasty things about those folks.
There's nothing in here about parody or satire. We have all seen/heard any number of bits of art where a real face or voice was used for satirical purposes. Or a reasonable facsimile thereof, such as in Genesis's Land of Confusion video:
While I don't know for certain, I suspect the Reagans didn't give their consent for their likenesses to be in that video. Neither did (most likely) Princess Di, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Mick Jagger, Margaret Thatcher, or Muammar Gaddafi. There are other famous likenesses in that video, but those were the ones I spotted quickly in one viewing.
Would "open source Axanar" (a phrase AP himself has used) be allowable as satire or parody, perhaps both (see attached - the pronouncement was made on May 22, 2017)? BTW that blog post is on the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/2017060...arproductions.com/captains-log-may-22nd-2017/
Would the use of likenesses be protected, so long as it was not for commercial gain? I'd say I think it would be. AP himself has done a dance when it comes to being a "public figure", using that terminology and similar as, it seems, it suits him. Yet that's not how it works. If he's a public figure, then he's pretty ripe for satire, parody, and reportage, notwithstanding whether he approves of his likeness being used. He's also ripe for criticism (truth is, we all are) and status as a "public figure" means any defamation claims are a much steeper climb than for the
hoi polloi.
I would argue that he
is a public figure, given all of the articles that have been written about him and Axanar (and Axanar is him). He also has courted publicity, given talks at several conventions, and often made a showing of his connections in the industry. All of these scream "public figure".
If "Open Source Axanar", an idea he claims to condone, doesn't seek to make a profit, then he's not going to have much of a leg to stand on. He courted publicity. His complaining now that not all of that publicity is favorable, is just kinda tough. Artists -- real artists -- put their work out there for judgment all the time. And these days judgment also often means remixing.
Open Source (according to the Open Source Initiative, although they are framing it in terms of open source software, the original use for that term), means "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it."
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
Open Source is open source for everyone, and for every single purpose and slant. Not just for adulation.
