Lemesplain t1_jcvx8j1 wrote on March 19, 2023 at 11:40 PM

Reply to comment by ISMFOF123 in The photo that was the inspiration for Jamie Lee Curtis' character in EEAAO by woutomatic

Legally, no… unless this look is her trademark.

Compare Steve Jobs and his turtlenecks. If someone used that outfit for a character, there might be some money involved. But this lady probably has plenty of other outfits she wears regularly, none of which are tied to her identity.

machado34 t1_jcvzrpn wrote on March 19, 2023 at 11:59 PM

>Compare Steve Jobs and his turtlenecks. If someone used that outfit for a character, there might be some money involved.

Nah, Glass Onion did it and it's at least covered by parody laws

crunchatizemythighs t1_jcw784f wrote on March 20, 2023 at 12:56 AM

Yeah dude is talking out his ass

ARedLemming t1_jcw06aq wrote on March 20, 2023 at 12:02 AM

Elizabeth Holmes did it, too.

crunchatizemythighs t1_jcw7636 wrote on March 20, 2023 at 12:55 AM

Not even in that instance would there be money involved

ComputerSavvy t1_jcwnd6u wrote on March 20, 2023 at 3:05 AM

> Compare Steve Jobs and his turtlenecks. If someone used that outfit for a character, there might be some money involved.

Why?

Steve Jobs would have to have previously applied for and been granted a trademark for his particular look which is not in any way "unique".

The purpose of trademarks is to make a clear distinction between one entity and another so they can be clearly identified as such.

Millions of people wear turtleneck sweaters, not making it unique and distinguishable enough from others to be trademarked.

Now if he dressed in a colorful, striped uniform similar in design to a Vatican guard on a daily basis, that would be very unique and it would probably have been granted trademark protection, bringing a whole new meaning to the word, trade dress.