norwegianne
Majesty
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 6,040
- City
- Rogaland
- Country
- Norway
The book "Seeing Angels" by Emma Heathcote-James (published in 2001) has recently been translated into Norwegian. The Norwegian title is "Märthas Engler" (Märtha's angels) and a two page foreword about Märtha and the angels and that whole situation is all about Märtha Louise in the book. Yet, she is still the one on the cover of the Norwegian version of the book. Permission to use her image for this commercial purpose has not been obtained by the publisher.
The author has mentioned in Norwegian papers that she has no clue about who the Norwegian princess is, and sounded a bit miffed about not having been asked about the changing by the princess, until she was told that the princess was actually not involved in this.
Her attorney appealed to the courts about retracting the book and removing Märtha's image from the cover - and was granted that it shouldn't be published. The publishing company, naturally, don't want this to be the final word in the matter, and now, according to her attorney, Märtha Louise will appear in court on either Tuesday or Wednesday.
The princess' attorney describes the use of Märtha's image and name as cynical speculation, because she is not involved with the book at all.
The other part claims that Märtha does not have monopoly on the angels (thus missing the entire point of the case). Staff - the attorney representing the other part, doesn't think Märtha has a monopoly on deciding how she wants her own face to be represented judging by how it is used in this case. He goes on to describe her as a tough business woman who have turned her faith in angels into a business.
The head of the Norwegian Press association, Kokkvold, and the head of the publisher's association has mentioned that it is very problematic that the publisher have failed to get approval to use the picture before using it.
http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=172815
It's a difficult situation because the Norwegian royals don't usually lend their name to commercial purposes, yet by stepping outside the royal circle when she started her own business - Märtha is essentially working for commercial purposes. The problem is more in line with celebrities - when you use a celebrity to promote something, they usually are compensated for it in some manner - and have some way of choosing what they want to promote.
Any thoughts?
The author has mentioned in Norwegian papers that she has no clue about who the Norwegian princess is, and sounded a bit miffed about not having been asked about the changing by the princess, until she was told that the princess was actually not involved in this.
Her attorney appealed to the courts about retracting the book and removing Märtha's image from the cover - and was granted that it shouldn't be published. The publishing company, naturally, don't want this to be the final word in the matter, and now, according to her attorney, Märtha Louise will appear in court on either Tuesday or Wednesday.
The princess' attorney describes the use of Märtha's image and name as cynical speculation, because she is not involved with the book at all.
The other part claims that Märtha does not have monopoly on the angels (thus missing the entire point of the case). Staff - the attorney representing the other part, doesn't think Märtha has a monopoly on deciding how she wants her own face to be represented judging by how it is used in this case. He goes on to describe her as a tough business woman who have turned her faith in angels into a business.
The head of the Norwegian Press association, Kokkvold, and the head of the publisher's association has mentioned that it is very problematic that the publisher have failed to get approval to use the picture before using it.
http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=172815
It's a difficult situation because the Norwegian royals don't usually lend their name to commercial purposes, yet by stepping outside the royal circle when she started her own business - Märtha is essentially working for commercial purposes. The problem is more in line with celebrities - when you use a celebrity to promote something, they usually are compensated for it in some manner - and have some way of choosing what they want to promote.
Any thoughts?