Would they have had to get permission from the actors to show thier image?

Keiō LineKeiō Line Posts: 12,979
Forum Member
✭✭
The ones that are alive:)

I know the argument could be "the clips/images are the property of the BBC, they can do with them what they like!!! ENDS OF!!!:mad:"
..but I'm not so sure.

Comments

  • garbage456garbage456 Posts: 8,225
    Forum Member
    If they have worked for them in the past I don't why they would need permission as they showing the exact same face for when they were with them. If it was a new picture maybe that would be different.
  • TEDRTEDR Posts: 3,413
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I expect they obtained permission via the actor's original contracts; likely the actors are now due royalties through the same mechanism.
  • Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yeah, I think they would for new material. They can use all imagery associated with the episodes they were a part of for DVDs and other merchandise but if they want their image for brand new episodes/material they'd need permission.

    At least that's what I presume from what's happened on other shows.
  • JAS84JAS84 Posts: 7,430
    Forum Member
    They certainly needed permission for John Hurt, as an image of a younger him appeared in Night of the Doctor immediately after McGann regenerated. But the others, probably not. The use of their likenesses would be in their contracts when they first played the role. Companions have no such clause in their contract though, which caused some books to be reprinted minus Billie Piper's photo.
  • col bcol b Posts: 138
    Forum Member
    I spoke to Colin Baker about this in person just after The eleventh hour was shown and although he was happy that they used his image in that story,i got the impression that they did it without asking him and he joked with me about chasing up royalty payments.
  • Keiō LineKeiō Line Posts: 12,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    JAS84 wrote: »
    They certainly needed permission for John Hurt, as an image of a younger him appeared in Night of the Doctor immediately after McGann regenerated. But the others, probably not. The use of their likenesses would be in their contracts when they first played the role. Companions have no such clause in their contract though, which caused some books to be reprinted minus Billie Piper's photo.

    My instinct is that the actors would have the same level of protection of their image that Billie Piper had. I still have a niggle about the BBC being able to "lift" an image (or video) and inset it in new context (in this case episode) without the actors permission. I just don't think contracts would be that open.
  • Keiō LineKeiō Line Posts: 12,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    col b wrote: »
    I spoke to Colin Baker about this in person just after The eleventh hour was shown and although he was happy that they used his image in that story,i got the impression that they did it without asking him and he joked with me about chasing up royalty payments.

    That buggers up my last post :p

    ..but answers my question:D
  • TEDRTEDR Posts: 3,413
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JAS84 wrote: »
    They certainly needed permission for John Hurt, as an image of a younger him appeared in Night of the Doctor immediately after McGann regenerated.

    Was that an actual archive image? I honestly thought they'd just put a wig on him and used the reflection to try to hide the effects of age.
  • CorwinCorwin Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TEDR wrote: »
    Was that an actual archive image? I honestly thought they'd just put a wig on him and used the reflection to try to hide the effects of age.

    They would have also cgi'd out his beard if that were the case since he was clean shaven.


    I've seen it suggested that this was the image used or one from that film anyway.
  • Michael_EveMichael_Eve Posts: 14,425
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TEDR wrote: »
    Was that an actual archive image? I honestly thought they'd just put a wig on him and used the reflection to try to hide the effects of age.

    Actually would say it's footage of John from the Late Sixties/early Seventies but have had a look at wiki, etc and am none the wiser, sorry.

    Haven't seen much early Hurt apart from '10 Rillington Place' a long time ago, but wasn't he a bit, y'know....ginger? :)
  • jpljpl Posts: 286
    Forum Member
    different country but Crispin Glover successfully sued the producers of bake to the future for using his likeness in the sequel without his permission even though he was in the first.
  • be more pacificbe more pacific Posts: 19,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TEDR wrote: »
    Was that an actual archive image? I honestly thought they'd just put a wig on him and used the reflection to try to hide the effects of age.
    That's not as strange as it sounds. There's a long history of dodgy wigs being worn during regeneration stories.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 28
    Forum Member
    Its very likely they "should" receive something for image use, as its in a new and different context, though in this case I'm sure the actors are more than happy for the publicity, plus it is not in their general interest to a start civil action against the BBC to recoup what could be just a matter of a few hundred quid, and the fallout it may do to future work with the beeb !

    Interestingly, artists impressions incur no royalty fee, no matter how good the likeness. This particularly p*****d of Jon Pertwee as I understand some photo images were started to be used for Tom Baker books, which Tom receives a small fee, and Jon receives nowt as his are artist drawings of him !
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 28
    Forum Member
    Additionally, in this age of pay-for-a-signature, any new re-jigged photo image released is a further opportunity for the artist to sign and charge for the picture that has been generated by a fan and presented to them for signing.

    Practically and commercially speaking, Paul McGann will see a big increase in his pay for signature income now there a new images of him to sign. Not a dig at mcGann, but in real tems any publicity is good for the actors, even if they don't receive what is probably due to them as a one off royalty gratuity for using their image in a new story.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 158
    Forum Member
    The authority to use a previous image and any remuneration due to the actor are separate things.

    It's pretty standard that actors' contracts contain repeat fee provisions, which the use of an old image would fall into. They'd probably be entitled to a small fee pro rata.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 28
    Forum Member
    It would be a very small fee indeed for an image.

    Elisabeth Sladen received £12 royalty for a full broadcast episode. Tom received £250 per episode.

    Repeat fees are usually territory locked, and after a number of repeats no further royalty is paid, or it's value is significantly reduced.
  • HestiaHestia Posts: 380
    Forum Member
    Actually would say it's footage of John from the Late Sixties/early Seventies but have had a look at wiki, etc and am none the wiser, sorry.

    Haven't seen much early Hurt apart from '10 Rillington Place' a long time ago, but wasn't he a bit, y'know....ginger? :)

    I thought it looked very much like him from around the time of "I, Claudius" where he played the completely bonkers Caligula. As for "10, Rillington Place", was he Evans? It's ages since I've seen that.
  • Joe_ZelJoe_Zel Posts: 20,832
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Honkytonky wrote: »
    Interestingly, artists impressions incur no royalty fee, no matter how good the likeness. This particularly p*****d of Jon Pertwee as I understand some photo images were started to be used for Tom Baker books, which Tom receives a small fee, and Jon receives nowt as his are artist drawings of him !

    I don't think that's true anymore. A lot of comic book spin offs or continuations from TV series have to get actor permission and sometimes pay fees to use their likeness.
  • MansunMansun Posts: 2,155
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    RTD once explained on a commentary that they don't have to pay artists for re-using old clips provided the clip is less than five seconds long. Any longer and royalties are incurred.

    I think this was on the Utopia commentary, where a brief shot of Bad Wolf/Rose crops up as the Doctor explains how Jack became immortal.
  • LightAtTheEndLightAtTheEnd Posts: 59
    Forum Member
    Would they be able to use a shot of John Hurt from an old movie for the brief mirror image in Night of the Doctor? Wouldn't there be rights issues to negotiate with the owners of that movie as well as John himself?
  • be more pacificbe more pacific Posts: 19,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jpl wrote: »
    different country but Crispin Glover successfully sued the producers of bake to the future for using his likeness in the sequel without his permission even though he was in the first.
    Yes, the replacement actor Jeffrey Weissman was made-up to look like Crispin Glover and his scenes were interspersed with stock footage of Glover. So it's obvious the producers were trying to make the recasting as inconspicuous as possible. Which is weird, seeing as the recasting of Jennifer was so obvious.

    I wonder how much say Christopher Eccleston had over the use of his image during The Day of the Doctor? It seemed a bit weird that the Hurt to Eccleston regeneration was cut short when we had already seen stock footage of Eccleston used during the "Gallifrey Stands" scene.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As far as I'm aware DW mag never used any pictures of Anthony Ainley for years as he wanted paid every time they used an image of him; I've no idea if he was successful in getting anything mind.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    Keiō Line wrote: »
    The ones that are alive:)

    I know the argument could be "the clips/images are the property of the BBC, they can do with them what they like!!! ENDS OF!!!:mad:"
    ..but I'm not so sure.

    Yes they would - an actor gets residuals for work they have done. Should that work be used elsewhere then the need to pay for that appearance.
Sign In or Register to comment.