I should think that, if the case gets off the ground, they should get exemplary damages for putting bogey in the same advert as Posh Spice.
On another note: what's the betting he's upped to a KBE very shortly? 'Lady Beckham, Ow! my Gawd!'
Clearly the Bogart estate had no problems with Longines using his image recently in an advertising campaign, but there is clear and distinct difference between the two companies. One is a fine manufacturer of mid-range and high quality watches at reasonable prices with a focus on traditional design and acknowledgement of their historic values. The other is run by clever spivs off shoring and eschewing traditional manufacturing techniques in favour of cheap and nasty rain coats from China, but when it comes to marketing they are more than happy to feed off past glories and reputations.
The Bogart estate is clearly a moral enterprise and understands the importance of his legacy.
^Maybe they are not yet aware of Longines use of the image?
I am surprised copywright lasts so long, but then I am not a lawyer.
Did not Cliff Richard have issues regarding copyright on his hits from the 50s?
I thought copywright on books and music only lasted for 99 years?
The husband of one of my wife's friends was once married to a descendent of Karl Marx's family and I am told she had holiday homes and property from royalties from his weighty tomes. Nice one, if only my anscestors had been so clever instead of being foreman navvies, Irish famine refugees, boiler makers and Liverpool dockers for the whole of the 19th century.
It's seventy five years from the death of the creator (with special rules about 'revived' copyright, as it used to be fifty years). I am amazed that they didn't get a properly licensed image for commercial use. The copyright is almost certainly owned by the film studio or its assigns, not the Bogart family. But, maybe the US has got special rules about using personal images and damages for violation in the $1000,000s. Wouldn't be surprised.