Another important case involving fictional characters is the Buzzy Bee case.[49] Unfortunately, the term of Buzzy Bee’s copyright had expired so that the plaintiff had to seek legal protection under passing off. However, Fisher J. questioned, “Is it really necessary to force the square peg of character merchandising into the round hole of passing off?”[50] In his rejection of protection of the image of the buzzy bee under passing off, Fisher J. noted that there was already substantial protection for images in the field of “trade marks, registered designs, patents, the Fair Trading Act and copyright.”[51]　
　　In summary, copyright provides a suitable protection to cartoon characters or fictional characters in New Zealand.[52] Despite a lack of adequate case law, it seems clear that cartoon characters will fall within artistic works to qualify for copyright protection. As to literary characters, New Zealand generally follows the English line, where a suitable consideration may be given to the recent Canadian changes in this field.
　　
　　Copyright protection of real characters
　　
　　Unlike fictional characters, the copyright law may, “in limited and rare circumstances”, be of some assistance to a real character.[53]
　　Names
　　“There is nothing akin to copyright in a name. This has been part of our common law for a long time”.[54]　This is particularly true as to the name of real characters or celebrities.　Usually, the names of real characters are more unlikely to be an “original literary work” to attract copyright. Moreover, the names of celebrities are given by their parents; that is to say, the author of their names is their parent, not celebrities themselves. Obviously, this is inconsistent with the basic theory of copyright law. Alan Story thought, “Questioning the work or authorship requirements themselves would be to question basic categories of copyright doctrine, categories necessary for the very perpetuation of that doctrine.”[55]　One might argue that celebrities could name themselves and then be the author of their own names. Certainly, they can do that if they want. However, even though a real character satisfies the requirements to quality for copyright protection, it seems impossible to restrain other people from using his or her name, by way of naming their children, even their cats or dogs. Thus, the so-called “copyright” by no means amounts to the copyright defined under the present copyright law.
　　Images[56]
　　Copyright is of little assistance to real characters seeking to control the exploitation of their images.[57] Under the 1994 Act, a more relative provision concerning real characters’ images is that of artistic works which include photographs. Prior to the Copyright Act 1962, some photographs that came into existence in mechanical and uncreative ways were not protected as artistic works.[58] By contrast, the 1994 Act states that a photograph is protected regardless of artistic quality.[59] However, while a photograph of a real character can easily attract copyright, this copyright is vested in the creator of the work.[60] This may cause problems for a plaintiff, whose photograph has been appropriated to another’s use for it is unlikely that the plaintiff will have been both the author and the object of the work.[61] A case in point is that of Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co.[62]
　　In 1956, Jock Carroll interviewed the Canadian concert pianist Glenn Gould for a magazine article. Carroll took photographs of Gould. The photographs were used in the magazine article. After Gould died, Carroll published a book, which made use of Carroll’s original photographs of Gould. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in ruling that the author, Carroll, was the owner of the copyright in the photographs. As to the authorship of a photograph, an important exception is made in sec 21(3) which provides that where a person commissions and pays or agrees to pay for the taking of a photograph and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, that person is the first owner of any copyright in the work. In other words, the provision awards the copyright ownership in a photograph to the commissioning party. So if a photographer is commissioned to take the plaintiff’s photograph, but uses it without authorization, this will infringe the copyright of the plaintiff’s photograph.[63]
　　Another case relating to a celebrity’s image is Merchandising Corp of America Inc. v. Harpbond.[64] In this case, the second plaintiff was Adam of the pop group Adam and the Ants. In 1981, he devised a new look for himself based the clothes on Les Incroyables and based his make-up on Red Indian facial markings. These comprised two broad red lines done in greasepaint, with a light blue line between, running diagonally from nose to jaw on one cheek, a heart over the left eye-brow, and a beauty spot by the left nostril. The hairstyle featured gold braid, a kiss curl and Valentino sideburns. In deciding whether the facial make-up was a “painting” within the meaning of the 1956 Act, the court held that facial make-up was not a painting under the Copyright Act, and the defendant’s portrait was not a copy, direct or indirect, of the sketch. All that had been copied were the two straight lines, and by themselves, these could not attract copyright, nor could their reproduction be of a substantial, in the sense of striking, part of the original. Although the plaintiff failed to warrant copyright protection for his facial make-up, this case left open the possibility that celebrities may protect their images and enjoin any unauthorized merchandising under the copyright law. It was submitted that the proper basis of the decision should have been originality, not lack of the attributes of a “painting”.[65] Albeit what the proper basis is, however, there always exists a tension between the celebrities’ images and copyright protection: on the one hand, it is necessary for copyright to protect celebrities from losing the value they have in their images; on the other hand, the images of celebrities usually lack sufficient certainty to be protected. So maybe a more permanent form of decoration would provide a different decision in this case.[66]

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 页 共[8]页