Bequeathed intellectual property: the property rights of filmmakers and filmmakers’ heirs.
The rights of a filmmaker’s heirs, however, are not as simple as a “bundle of rights” but rather “an absolute right to use his name, image, or likeness for any purpose.”
The “right to use” includes copyright and trademark, as well as all other rights, including the right to distribute the film, sell it for profit, and use the film in advertisements.
The film industry has seen the “right” to use a movie go through several legal wrangles.
In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the copyrights and trademarks of filmmaker Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy in a case involving an Irish filmmaker who used her name and likeness in a commercial film.
But in 2015, the Court ruled in a ruling similar to the Nolan case, upholding the copyright and trademarks on a German film called The Grand Budapest Hotel.
The latest legal wrangling came last year in the case of a French film studio called L’Arte and its owner, Jean-Pierre Rivet, who owns a copyright on the name of his studio.
Rivets lawyer, Gilles Pompidou, argued in court that Rivetz’s use of his name and image in the film violates a French law that makes it illegal to “imitate the personality of an individual in order to cause him to lose his right to his own name and reputation.”
In a court filing in May, Rivett’s attorney claimed that Riezts’ use of the name and images “is not a violation of the law, and thus he does not have a right to sue.”
The film industry is not the only one who wants Rivettes name back.
In February, a court in Belgium rejected an offer from Rivetenes attorney to give the director’s name back to the studio.
The decision came after a Belgian court ruled that Riouxs name was a property of L’Associatif Internationale, the production company that produced the film.
The case was brought by L’Accouche, a group of French film makers and distributors, including Rivetiennes partner in the studio, Jean de Bontin, who is also the owner of Rieze Productions.
The group argues that the film’s name is protected by the French and Belgian copyright laws, which grant rights to producers of visual works that were created under copyright.
Rives name is not a property under these laws, and he has been trying to get the name back for over a year, according to the group’s president, Joris Lecomte.
In its ruling, the Belgian court said Rivetan was entitled to the name because he created a film called “L’AccuChez” in 2001, which “takes on a life of its own, but with the same identity.”
But Lecommte said that Rifets name was not a trademark and that the company should have given Riveta a name that would “recognize his work.”
In its decision, the court said that the studio had not offered any reason why it believed that the name was infringing.
“The court did not say that the court would consider this request, and it was not given any opportunity to do so,” the court wrote.
“The film has been protected by copyright for over 30 years,” said De Bontins attorney, Jérôme Bignous, in an interview with The Washington Post.
“Its only claim to the rights of its creator is that he created it.
But for a producer of visual films to give his name back is like giving a man the right of the street to sell a car.
There is no compensation.”
In June, the film studio agreed to give Rivetten a name back, but Bignoul said the company will not pay Rivetu a fee for the privilege.
The studio did not respond to a request for comment.