Hello,
I'm looking to make a short film for the festival circuit. I'm UK-based but it would ideally be screenable elsewhere. The story requires a ventriloquist's dummy.
I can't afford to have one custom-built so I'm thinking of using a modified (aged and dishevelled) version of a doll manufactured in the 1930s. In its unmodified state, the doll would be fairly recognisable to some people, and it would be shown in a menacing/unflattering light.
The dummy in question is sometimes referred to as 'Dapper Dan' and is a variation of this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_McCarthy
I'm wondering if I'd be likely to run into any trouble with this. Is it permittable to use a manufactured doll in the place of a character? Is there anything I'd need to avoid?
Apologies if this has already been answered; I have searched around but couldn't find a clear solution.
Many thanks for your help and advice!
Use of 1930s ventriloquial dummy
Re: Use of 1930s ventriloquial dummy
Hi KRL and welcome to the forum,
A ventriloquist's dummy is likely to be entriely hand made and so, in the UK at least, might qualify for copyright protection as a work of artistic craftsmanship (see section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988). However if you believe that the doll was made in the USA, their copyright law does not cover this particular category of work, and furthermore, if the doll was created in the US in the 1930s it would have been necessary to register the work with the US Copyright Office in order to get protection, which I think is unlikely to have happened.
However if you are unsure about where and who might have made your particular doll, it would be best to assume that it was made in the UK and follow UK law. You would not be infringing copyright just by using the doll. It is possible that using it in derogatory way might offend the moral rights of the creator (section 80 CDPA), but since neither the 1911 nor 1956 Copyright Acts recognised this particular moral right, I don't think that this is a serious problem for you, especially as it is safe to assume, the creator of the dummy is now dead. If you are reasonably sure that the doll was made in the USA, then this ceases to be an issue at all as moral rights are largely absent from US copyright law.
There are no implications for other inellectual property rights, such as trade mark law or design rights etc, as you are using the real doll.
A ventriloquist's dummy is likely to be entriely hand made and so, in the UK at least, might qualify for copyright protection as a work of artistic craftsmanship (see section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988). However if you believe that the doll was made in the USA, their copyright law does not cover this particular category of work, and furthermore, if the doll was created in the US in the 1930s it would have been necessary to register the work with the US Copyright Office in order to get protection, which I think is unlikely to have happened.
However if you are unsure about where and who might have made your particular doll, it would be best to assume that it was made in the UK and follow UK law. You would not be infringing copyright just by using the doll. It is possible that using it in derogatory way might offend the moral rights of the creator (section 80 CDPA), but since neither the 1911 nor 1956 Copyright Acts recognised this particular moral right, I don't think that this is a serious problem for you, especially as it is safe to assume, the creator of the dummy is now dead. If you are reasonably sure that the doll was made in the USA, then this ceases to be an issue at all as moral rights are largely absent from US copyright law.
There are no implications for other inellectual property rights, such as trade mark law or design rights etc, as you are using the real doll.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Re: Use of 1930s ventriloquial dummy
Hi Andy,
Thanks. That's very helpful (and great news). The doll isn't handmade, however. I believe it was mass produced in the US and is based on the Dummy originally used by the ventriloquist in the Wikipedia article. I'm going to buy it from the US and I'm certain that that's where it was produced. But, based on what you've said, it doesn't sound like that distinction is likely to present any problems.
Thanks again. This is a great resource.
Thanks. That's very helpful (and great news). The doll isn't handmade, however. I believe it was mass produced in the US and is based on the Dummy originally used by the ventriloquist in the Wikipedia article. I'm going to buy it from the US and I'm certain that that's where it was produced. But, based on what you've said, it doesn't sound like that distinction is likely to present any problems.
Thanks again. This is a great resource.