肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – 肖像権等のライツクリアランス事例集

肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – The right of quotation


An exception to copyright law exists, but is all too frequently misapplied: the right of quotation. Works protected by copyright may be used for the purpose of quotation. This can apply to academic works, news reports, satires, parodies or documentaries dealing with the topic under discussion. Countries including the USA and Israel also allow quotation in teaching and educational materials and by search engines.

The key concept here is fair use: quotations from works protected by copyright must be used within the framework of an independent work on the topic. Assembling “collections of quotations” is not covered. While no fixed rule exists that would define exactly how much can legitimately be cited from another work, borrowing too much will not be judged to be covered by “fair use” if a dispute arises. Even when sources are given, one may not use third-party material to embellish one’s own work.

As is always the case, rules differ and are interpreted differently in different places. As such, whether footage can be used for the purpose of quotation, and the form it can be used in, must be determined individually on a case-by-case basis to avoid unpleasant surprises. We would be happy to help you with this.

肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – Using famous personalities


“Stars are public persons, so using footage of them is fine.” True or false? The law on using footage of persons of public interest is ambiguous even in such tightly-regulated countries as Germany. Different spheres of law intersect here: freedom of opinion and press freedoms collide with privacy and publicity rights. But a rule of thumb can be derived from the numerous cases which have arisen:

When images or audio from people who have become famous because of their status, office, talents or exploits (such as politicians, artists, actors, or sportspeople) are used in the context in which the individuals in question have reached prominence, the public interest in information is generally valued more highly than the right of individuals to privacy.

George Clooney and his wife walking on a red carpet could legitimately be used (in an editorial context) to illustrate the topic of George Clooney as an actor.
But if the same material was intended for use in an advertising context, say to suggest that George Clooney has a preference for a particular toothpaste, Mr. Clooney could raise objections. He would most certainly be in a position to raise objections if a marital row captured on camera by chance were to be shared with a wider audience (private sphere!) But if the marital row just so happened to take place on the red carpet – well, that would be a different story again.

肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – Indemnity against liability


Identifying and tracing rights holders sometimes proves impossible. This is typically because the identity of persons portrayed is unknown, or because a person cannot be contacted even after numerous attempts. In some cases, the time and place of a person’s death are unknown, so the relevant post-mortem publicity rights cannot be applied.

Does that mean that images or footage cannot be used? Not necessarily: we have the expertise and the experience to gauge the degree of risk involved reliably. If it is high, you still don’t need to risk your own neck when using protected works: we can offer you an indemnification agreement which ensures any claims for damages will be against Framepool and not against you. In this case, you bear no risk whatsoever.

The indemnification fee depends on the degree of risk involved and is calculated on a per-project basis, taking many relevant factors into account. They include the type and duration of use, geographical dissemination (national, continental, global), whether persons are contemporary or historical figures, and their significance for the general public and within the images. The fee applies to all third-party rights within a given project that cannot be cleared.

Note: We clear all rights. And when rights clearance is impossible, we still have solutions.

Enquiries to rightsclearance@framepool.com

肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – Advertising in images


The UEFA European Championship is over, and fresh footage is now trundling in of the games, the players and… their sponsors.

It is practically impossible to keep the omnipresent logos, slogans and names of advertisers out of the picture. While one might expect companies to be grateful for their valuable advertising receiving an additional airing after the event, it would be unwise to rely on this effect: suing for damages for unauthorized use is the more lucrative option for companies.

Make sure nobody uses you to refinance their investment in advertising by ensuring third-party rights are clarified before footage is used. In addition to the usual rights of persons to their own likeness (players, officials, fans etc.) and event rights, clarifying brand rights is crucial when advertising for companies is visible in images or footage (be it as logos or slogans on perimeter advertising or on jerseys, scoreboards etc.). Note that this also applies to royalty-free footage! But you don’t need to worry: we can take care of this – for our own footage and, on request, for footage from other sources.

Suing for damages for unauthorized use is a lucrative option for companies.

肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – How to estimate licensing fees

Talent fees can rain on your parade

Predicting licensing fees can feel like a game of cat and mouse: the other side usually wins. To boost your chances of cracking this conundrum, talk to us before mentioning figures!

One recent example from our Rights Clearance activities involved two scenes from famous cartoons that were intended to play a central role in a commercial. The ad agency reckoned the total fees for both shots would barely run into five figures, but the actual fees turned out to be ten times that – for each clip! With discrepancies on that scale, brokering agreement is almost impossible even when rights holders are willing to offer very generous “quantity rebates” and customers are very understanding. So the project is dead in the water.

We offer a free service to spare you from such embarrassing late discoveries: describe your project to us, ideally using a mood film, and we will tell you whether it is feasible and what conditions and fees you will probably need to reckon with.


  • Rights clearance issues and licensing fees for third-party rights can arise even in connection with royalty free footage: rights which may need clarification can include not only personality rights, but also audio rights, brand names and brands visible in images, logos of third-party companies (common in sports footage!), event rights, third-party copyrights etc.
  • License fees for copyrighted external material (not offered via an agency) and other third-party rights are typically determined on the basis of the total budget of a campaign and on its expected reach (media plan).
  • Talent fees are often determined on the basis of the most expensive person in the clip ("MFN" – Most Favoured Nation Clause).
  • Fees vary greatly depending on the rights holder and the media plan. Attempting to predict them in advance can be a game of roulette.
We offer you
  • our experience for an estimate (free),
  • our expertise for rights clearance (450 euros per right), and
  • our finesse in negotiations (on a commission basis).
Don’t rely on your 50/50 lifeline when you need to secure rights and large amounts of money are at stake. Use Framepool as your “phone a friend” lifeline instead!

(写真: © Warner Bros)

肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – 知っておくと便利 ー 訴訟よりも権利クリアを!

30億円超の賠償 ...

以前にブログで記事にしたように その人物の特徴的でシンボリックなアクションを真似たり、そっくりさんを登場させても、肖像権のクリアランスが必要なのです。(ペレ氏の場合は有名なバイシクル・シュート)

(写真: Webber Represents)

肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – モノマネやソックリに関して








肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – "Freedom of panorama"



  • 米国・英国・日本・スペイン・オランダ・ドイツ・オーストリア・スイスにおいては、建物が公共の空間から撮影された場合、任意の使用が許容されます。しかし、芸術作品やインテリア、そして建築物で橋やダムのように建築作品として分類されていないものに対し、制限がされている場合がありますのでご注意ください。
  • フランス・ベルギー・リュクサンブール・ギリシャ・イタリアでは、パノラマの自由は規定されていません。すべてに対し撮影許可そして使用許可が必要になります。また、制限が様々な異なる視点に対して適応される場合があります。


肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – ドローン撮影の法的条件


FRAME POOLはドローン撮影動画のお問い合わせをクライアントから沢山いただきます。例えばイベント会場に集まる人々の頭の上を旋回するものや、高層ビルの狭間をすり抜けるもの、高速道路のめまぐるしいトラフィックを追いかけるもの、 エクストリームスポーツ選手の僅か数センチ後ろを追いかけるものなど様々です。



FRAME POOLはみなさんにストレス無し&リスク無しで使っていただけるドローン撮影映像素材をご用意しています!


肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – 肖像権について

Incidental portrayal





肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – ライツマネージド(RM)」と「ロイヤリティフリー(RF)」の違いは?

What in the world is RM and RF?


ロイヤリティフリー(RF) 映像素材は, 同じ映像が他の方や他社によって、希望しない用途にに使われてしまう可能性が高くなります。なぜなら、一度購入した映像素材を購入先に使用目的を報告することなく繰り返し使用できるからです。この「幸せそうな家族のサイクリング映像」は、その典型的な一例です。



リベラル政党と極右政党そしてチーズの広告が共有したものとは... (写真はFDPの広告から抜粋)

肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – 死後の肖像権


プライバシーの権利として、すべての人は名前、画像、肖像に関して保護される権利を持っています。動画や写真に描写されている人物の第三者の権利さらには著作権は使用される前にクリアされなければなりません。 人物が住んでいる国の一般的な法規範が肖像権に関して使用が可能かどうかを規定しますが、 法的な立場が国にではなく、出版物を対象にしている場合は著作権法から見ていきます。しかしながら人物の死後の法的立場はどのようになるのでしょう?それは、人物が亡くなった時と場所に寄るのです。




肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – 著作権に関する判決

"Happy birthday, Mr. President"


そして悪いニュース。共有財産になるまでには未だちょっと遠いです。これまでのロスアンジェルスの判事の判決によると、あなたが次の誕生日に個人的に歌うことは無料で許可されると意味しているでしょう。 少なくとも著作権が完全にクリアされるまで、もしくは来年末にに著作権保護期間の70年が終わるまで時間がかかりそうです。



肖像権等の使用許諾獲得例事例 – エッフェル塔の夜景映像について

The city of love by night

美しい夜景に浮かぶ、きらびやかなイルミネーション... ここに問題があります。エッフェル塔を運営する団体が、このパリを象徴する名所のイルミネーションに関する著作権を持っているのです。