Rolling Stone Mag: KISS

[ozone73]

So I was just reading the April 10, 2014 edition of Rolling Stone magazine with KISS on the cover. There's a part of the article about KISS that I found interesting. It's on page 72 which reads ...

Each member of Kiss had designed his own makeup. Criss relinquished the rights to his character when he left (although he's confused about the circumstances), and Frehley licensed his: He says he's due to get the rights back soon.

Does anyone have information about Ace getting his makeup design rights back? Does this mean, if he wanted, he could prevent Tommy or anyone else from wearing his Spaceman makeup? If that's the case, that could cause some issues for Gene and Paul. Or am I not reading this right?

[ozone73]

Eddie Trunk's website has highlights from the Rolling Stone article and in it there's a reply from Paul regarding Ace's statement about getting the rights back for his makeup. This isn't in the Rolling Stone magazine, though.

Eddie Trunk Rolling Stone highlights:
http://eddietrunk.com/rolling-stone-pos ... sted-here/

[Genebaby]

Yes,I saw Paul's response that it was a fantasy. There may be some confusion as Ace's makeup was not featured on the Kiss My Ass album, so I'm not sure when he would have sold it.

You would think once the reunion started he would not have given it away, only before when it may have been considered not worth that much and he could have used the money.

It would be funny if Ace did get it back. Still, whatever the current feelings, Kiss can use it as they clearly have that right, until then he should just keep out of it and concentrate on his music.

[PinkWiz]

Ace is full of shit... he and Peter fucked up by giving up the rights. I have a feeling that's the only way Gene and Paul would agree on the '96 reunion... by taking over ownership of the designs. G & P knew what they were doing and had long term plans for Kiss in makeup without A & P (of course, what Kiss is today).

[PinkWiz]

On the other hand, Paul and Gene love to blame KISS' decline in popularity in the early 80's on the fox and ankh designs... very convenient excuse for not coming up with new designs today.

KISS was waaaaay overexposed in the early 80's... THAT was the problem... not kick ass makeup designs. Vinnie didn't wear the Ankh long enough, but by all accounts, fans loved Carr as the Fox.

Damn, where am I going with this...

[metatron]

100% with you V!c & p!nkw!Z.
Think it's time all KISS members cross swords in a Nude Group Hug.
Eye Contact Optional

[PinkWiz]

100% with you V!c & p!nkw!Z.
Think it's time all KISS members cross swords in a Nude Group Hug.
Eye Contact Optional

According to Peter's book, Ace would be down in the center of that circle jerk...

[metatron]

100% with you V!c & p!nkw!Z.
Think it's time all KISS members cross swords in a Nude Group Hug.
Eye Contact Optional

According to Peter's book, Ace would be down in the center of that circle jerk...

[youtube][/youtube]

[GOLD5]

They still need Ace's permission and to give him royalties for things which he is featured on the cover. Like those Mego style figures from http://figurestoycompany.com/kissactionfigures.aspx. There are Tommy ones but also Ace versions. If they use a photo of Ace they owe him image royalties in makeup or not. I just bought a deck of playing cards last week at the mall and it has a photo of Ace and Peter on the front. Its like when they use a photo of Harrison Ford on the Han Solo Star Wars backing cards, they still need to give him photographic likeness image compensation even if he never had a slice of the toys.. If you look at Ace's website http://www.acefrehley.com/ he has two pictures of himself in makeup and he only sells autographed 8x10 photos of himself with no makeup. He used it on his book cover though.. I think books are exempt because theyre 'for review purposes'..

[doublev2]

funny. i used to be a pro photographer and usually the photographer who took the picture owns the picture unless it was paid for by the band and agreed before hand. Obviously something like Dynastly cover would be owned by the record label and not photographer but i doubt any rights go to Paul, Ace Gene and Peter because of make up. I believe however to sell action figures etc is a different story. I sure in hell wouldnt owe ace anything if i took his photo for a magazine and then sold it for stock or to another magazine just because his make up is in it.

[GOLD5]

Yes absolutely the rights belong to the person who took the photograph. Usually when photographing celebs/models theres still a signed agreement because the people can and will still sue for rights even though they wont win. In cases of putting someones picture on a box you cant just do it without getting permission. I can take a picture of Ace Frehley and put in a coffee table book of my pictures or sell it to a newspaper. Thats public discussion. If I then turn around and put Aces picture on coffee mugs and toothpaste and act as if he endorses those products thats where it becomes not just my picture.
I think photographer of Dynasty cover still owns the photo. I think he gets money for them using it unless he sold it somehow..
The glassware and most items now have Tommy's picture on them. They used to have Ace's photo sometimes and his autograph too.. I was just saying that its iffy. Vinnie probably did sue them for using his face on the box of Kissology but they could have said that they owned the photo or that they changed it. If you change the picture more than 20% it makes it OK to use, according to US law.
My favorite unlicensed item was the Lady Gaga blowup sex doll. She sued the company and they stopped making them so theyre worth a lot now..

[Genebaby]

Gaga sex doll? Where?......lol......

[kisslolo]

Ace is a poor guy and would do better to make the music! Rather than to make the mourner! This guy is a has been since his departure of the group in 1982!

[GOLD5]

Yes, I wish I had one
(thanks for the image posting help Vic!)

[Genebaby]

Oh my!!