Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The social utility of celebrity

  • 21-09-2005 7:44am
    #1
    Ann Elk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 332 ✭✭


    Good morning all,

    In light of the new charter and so on, I thought that I might take this opportunity to stoke the fires of serious debate on an issue which is central to a research project that I’m undertaking. As the thread title suggests part of the project centres around the use, to society as a whole, of ‘celebrity’.

    The bones of the debate is this: - If it is to be taken as fact that in, order for something to be afforded legal protection as ‘intellectual property’, it must be adding something of some value to the cumulative pool of societies knowledge, should the law be willing to offer protection to the area of ‘celebrity’.

    For the purposes of the project I’ve had to draw a theoretical line between ‘business’ (e.g. the movie industry, music, sports etc., where people albeit arguably in some instances, do some kind of work) and the more modern phenomenon of ‘celebrity’ whereby certain people have become famous for ‘being famous’, rather than for anything that they have accomplished as such.

    The question is should such persons – who’s fame is often the result of others (i.e. the media, PR persons, etc) be afforded a higher degree of protection for their image than the ordinary man in the street? Should they be granted exclusive rights to protect that which they did not exclusively create, and if so, why?

    Your thoughts on the matter are of general interest to me and will no doubt offer me opportunities to explore issues that haven’t so far occurred to me. If you need further clarification on anything just post a question and I’ll do my best to clear it up – I’m not sure if I’ve managed to convey my thinking in a coherent manner or not.

    Cheers for your time – hopefully it will turn into a lively debate.
    :)


Comments

  • #2
    simu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,730 ✭✭✭✭simu


    Ann Elk wrote:
    The question is should such persons – who’s fame is often the result of others (i.e. the media, PR persons, etc) be afforded a higher degree of protection for their image than the ordinary man in the street? Should they be granted exclusive rights to protect that which they did not exclusively create, and if so, why?

    Well, these people who are famous for being famous usually depend on the media using their image in order to become and remain famous so I don't see how they could start charging for being featured in said media or demanding a say over how they are presented.

    I think they already have enough protection tbh.


Advertisement