Sleeping Beckham is expensive

As a football player quarreled with the national portrait gallery, this man is one of the most recognizable in the world. He earned millions, advertising a variety of goods, from razors to mobile phones. However, Beckham was not ready to donate his image in favor of the British National Portrait Gallery. Gallery employees, who in 2004 ordered the artist Samamte Taylor Wood Video portrait of sleeping Beckham, had to spend a lot of effort to agree with him and his agents who demanded to give them the right to the picture.

The David video portrait was presented to the public in April 2004. The film, in which Bekham, sleeping after training in Madrid, was shown for an hour, became a real hit among visitors to the National Gallery. The Sunday Telegraph documents indicate that Beckham forbade selling postcards using personnel from the film and trying to take away the right to her work from Samantha Taylor. The football player has achieved the right to decide which of his images worthy of publication in the publications of the National Gallery, and which are not. The documents also recorded that Beckham refused to take part in the documentary of the ITV television company, dedicated to the work of Samantha Taylor Wood, since "he was not at all inclined to the appearance of his video portrait on the TV screen."

Usually, people who agreed to pose for the National Gallery pass on it and the artist copyright to their portrait. However, Beckham did everything possible to reserve the right to the picture, and demanded from National Galeria and Samantha Taylor signing the corresponding contract with him and his Footwork company.

The Gallery Director Sandy Naitren in a letter to his colleague of January 12, 2004 writes: “The theses of the contract proposed to us are incorrectly formulated. It is incomprehensible: either complete information was not provided to its lawyers, or Footwork company decided to change its conditions without prior consultation with us. It remains to assume the first. So, according to the draft agreement, Samanth Taylor was hired by Footwork (on behalf of Beckham), so they must jointly own rights to a video portrait, and the National Gallery, although it can put up this work, but Footwork remains ownership of it. But everything should be the other way around: Footwork and Beckham agreed to cooperate with Samantha, and the ownership of the picture belongs to the National Gallery. ”

In a letter dated December 2, 2003, written on behalf of the interests of Beckham, Entertainment Limited, only one version of the portrait, which must mainly be in the national portrait gallery, can be made. If other museums wish to put up this work, then this should be agreed in advance with David Beckham Footwork. ” The letter will also be affected by the issue of selling postcards using the image of David and the criteria for selecting “correct” personnel from the film. It says: “We discussed again [the issue of sales of postcards] with David. I'm afraid that we cannot agree to your proposal to divide the income equally. Please tell me if you are ready to continue negotiations, taking into account the above. In the case of your positive answer, David’s lawyers will draw up the text of the relevant agreement. ” In addition, agreeing to the exhibition of a video portrait, the football player insisted that the text of each publication that would be accompanied by personnel from the film be certainly presented to him.

The document dated October 13, 2003 evaluates the results of the meeting between Naryn and Andy Dart, an employee of SFX, a former Bekham agency. It states: “It is quite possible to sign a draft agreement, but only in the context of copyright protection to the image of Beckham. We are talking about the same rights as Real Madrid (Bekham's football club). "

Simon Oliveira, an agent of a football player, said that there is nothing unusual in how his managers were negotiating with the national gallery. He also noted that it was David Beckham, and not the Madrid Real Madrid has copyright to the image of a football player.

“Sam Taylor guaranteed complete freedom in what concerns artistic creation. But we consider it important from a commercial point of view to control how the video portrait is used. We do not want other people to earn money on the image of David, ”said Simon Oliveira.

Last year, Footwork Productions earned 13 million pounds “on David’s image”.

Copyright to image

Not only backham - many celebrities vigilantly protect copyrights to their image. The contracts of such players of the Chelsea club as Michael Ballake, Frank Lampard and Joe Koyl include articles that stipulate the copyright of football players for their image. The Premier League is conducting negotiations with the football association to make such provisions a standard part of the contracts.

In 2004, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California and the leading role in the film “Terminator”, threatened to sue journalists, who, by analogy with the film, called him “Governing”. In connection with the use of his image for advertising purposes, Schwarzenegger sued a certain seller of cars from Ohio and a company that produces postcards.

In 2002, the former racer of Formula 1, British Eddie Irwin filed a lawsuit against the TalkSport Radio radio station regarding the unauthorized use of his image in advertising. The Supreme Court satisfied the requirements of the racer.

The copyrights to the image apply not only to people, but also to animals. When in 1978 the host John Knox left the British children's television show Blue Peter, he was allowed to take a collie named Shep, who participated in the show. But as soon as the Knox was going to use the colli in the television and the feed for dogs, the BBC laid the veto on his project, since in the minds of the audience the Shep was directly associated with the aforementioned children's program.

09/26/2006 / Chris Gastings / London Material published in the newspaper No. 174 of 09/27/2006.