For the past couple of days, I’ve been using Dave Chappelle’s Unforgiven performance to highlight the need for understanding creative contracts. Today, I’d like to take a closer look at the idea of losing the right to use your own name.
Lesson 3: Marketing vs. Manipulation
There is a point in Unforgiven where Chappelle rejects the advice of his friends who tell him to just take Chappelle Show and go to another network. In addition to an analogy of running from one slave master to another, Chappelle mentions that even if he wanted to create a new Chappelle Show, he couldn’t call it Chappelle Show because he signed away his right to use his name that way.
The name and image of an artist can have a significant impact on the success of any creative project. The difference between an A-list actor, writer, or artist can mean the difference between a hit and a failure. This is one of the reasons certain artists are mentioned so prominently in a comic, film, or video game.
But you can’t just use anyone’s name to sell something without their permission. Invasion of Privacy is a set of legal concepts that include the use of someone’s name or likeness for commercial gain, intrusion, undue publicity, and false light.
Companies get around this law by asking artists to allow for their name and image to be used to promote whatever project is being contracted. They also normally acquire the right to use the name of the project itself, because it is hard to ask someone to buy something if you can’t mention what it is.
That isn’t a problem. The problem comes in the way the language is written into the contract. Take this example for instance:
“Company shall have the exclusive right to use the name and likeness of The Artist in connection with the advertising, promotion, exploitation, and exhibition of any product based upon the Material under this Agreement, in perpetuity, throughout the universe in any and all media now known or invented in the future.”
If Chappelle signed a contract that included a clause like this, then he gave up the right to use the title Chappelle Show, even though his name is included in the title and even though the places where the show is being marketed now didn’t exist when he signed the contract. Chappelle’s name belongs to him. Chappelle Show belongs to Comedy Central.
The impact of this clause isn’t hard to see when you see it in isolation. When it is buried in a 25-page contract, and you are three months behind on your rent, and someone is holding a check with your name on it for more money than you’ve ever had in your life, it’s not as easy to see into the future. It happened to Chappelle. It happens to comic creators all the time. But it doesn’t have to happen to you.
Tomorrow, I’ll look at the final lesson I found in Unforgiven. Until then,
Have fun with your comic.
If you have questions about the business or legal aspects of your comic book publishing and you'd like a free consultation, please contact me and we can set something up that fits in with your schedule.
PLEASE NOTE: THIS BLOG POST IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH YOUR COMIC PROPERTY, DISCUSS IT WITH A QUALIFIED CONTRACT ATTORNEY OR CONTACT C3 FOR A FREE CONSULTATION