Tom Cruise May Face Legal Action Over Hitler Globe

Today's NY Post reports Tom Cruise and "Valkyrie" may face legal action over their use of a likeness Hitler's globe in the film:

Cruise, who fights the Nazis in "Valkyrie," might now have to battle a San Francisco advertising executive who says the couch-jumping star used a replica of one of Adolf Hitler's prized possessions in the movie without permission.

Robert Pritikin - who penned such jingles as "Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat" and has a $40 million art collection - owns several Hitler artifacts, including the Fuehrer's notorious globe, which he used to plan U-boat attacks from his compound in the Bavarian Alps.

The globe was replicated and prominently featured in "Valkyrie," the thriller about a real-life plot to assassinate Hitler - and that has Pritikin mulling legal action. In 2007, Pritikin paid $100,000 for the globe and had its likeness copyrighted to keep it from being used in propaganda by sick neo-Nazi groups.

When Pritikin bought the globe, he paid 5 times it's pre-auction estimate. It was sold by an American soldier named John Barsamian who had found it in the ruins of Hitler's "Eagle's Nest" in the Bavarian Alps in May 1945.

Barsamian, below, is photographed with the globe by the AP shortly before the auction in October 2007.

Comments

[cwstevens]

Where did you find a copy of the copyright registration? I can find nothing on the copyright site for trademark or copyright.

Also, who fact checked the writer of the Rice at? Sure he did that? It was credited to someone else a few years ago.

Look forward to the links.

[Freenation]

Pritkin you win....Now let us donate the law suit money to the charity....

[SteveRR]

I've seen this article pop-up in several places. In reviewing the article and comments, the are two important issues that seem to have been overlooked.

First, does he even have a property right to that globe? One could view it as a stolen war artifact that should be returned to whoever would qualify as the rightful owner today. If Pritikin has any personal integrity he would return it.

Second, when one buys an object they do not acquire a copyright to that object. What were the copyright laws in Germany at the time the globe was created. The copyright would, if it still exists, belong to the creator of the globe. If not, then the globe would be in the public domain. Once in the public domain, Pritikin cannot assert a copyright privilege. If globe is in the public domain, then "Valkyrie" had a legitimate right to use it.

So Mr. Pritikin, where is the chain of title documenting how the globe was legitimately acquired and how was the supposed copyright privilege acquired? Proof please.

[Principaldad]

Correct on all counts. This is not some stray handgun that a soldier took as a souvenir. It is an historically significant artifact that was taken from Hitler's compound by a soldier. It would seem to me that the rightful owner of the globe would be the German government.

You are also correct about the copyright. Pritikin has no claim to the copyright unless he obtained transfer of the copyright from the original copyright holder. You can't just copyright something because you own it.

[robinhood1]

The German government ought to sue Mr. Pritikin to recover stolen German government property.

[zelduh]

How can he claim a RIGHT OF AUTHORSHIP? By purchasing the object? Which idiot copyright agency granted that copyright?

[Principaldad]

That would be the US Copyright Office and it doesn't mean much in this case. Registration of a copyright does not give you ownership of a copyright or prove that you have a legal claim to a copyright. All that it amounts to is he registered his CLAIM to a copyright. In court Pritikin would surely lose.

[SFkid]

Nazi Germany has no rights to anything. They have stolen and pillaged all of Europe and therefore forfeited any rights.

[SteveRR]

Nazi Germany no longer exists. At random, I pulled this article Should ancient artifacts return home? The article writes "In the past few decades, some governments have politely asked for objects that they feel have been pillaged from their countries to be returned. During the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece attempted to pressure Great Britain for the return of the displaced Parthenon or "Elgin" marbles by announcing the building a brand new museum for them, the Acropolis Museum. Italy recently returned an obelisk that was taken from Ethiopia just before World War II.". The globe would appear to be stolen property that should be returned.

[OrenT]

If Pritikin were sincere in his reason for holding a copyright to "protect the likeness of the globe from being used by Neo-Nazis" then he should applaud TC for making the movie depicting the evils of Nazism rather than contemplating legal action for violating his copyright. Smacks of money-grubbing to me. Just another greedy corporate 'suit' looking to make a few bucks by waving his lawyers at someone.

[jojojo]

I saw Valkyrie over the holidays. Nothing goin' on, so we went, sorta to make fun of it, and of Tom. It was actually a pretty interesting story, with the whole plan surrounding the assassination attempt. Cruise was surrounded by fine actors, and he wasn't asked to do too much, just be mostly stolid, so he didn't get in the way. Not great, but better than I expected.

[hamchunk]

I offically own the likenesses the countries of both Ukraine and Brazil. So lay off, Rand-McNally or I will see you in court!!

[Chubbster]

Hey, we are in California, lets sue for any number of ridiculous reasons.

[TheFabOne]

How is it that a guy who wrote a jingle for some fake rice made enough to buy a $40 million art collection?

[hamchunk]

You know he is a money-launderer for the Rice-a-Roni/ Sinaloa Drug Cartel!!

[martymefurst]

I'm guessing song writing royalties, getting paid every time a song is aired on television.

[dirtyfrank]

I have to think that even if the globe was copyrighted in 2007, the film was probably in post production by then. It is possible this will get thrown out on the grounds that it was copyrighted after the globe was in use by the film.

[TimTrainer]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. The gentleman, with all due respect, will have no claim in court. You cannot sue someone for using the likeness of something you own in a film. If nothing else, parody laws would protect this use. But, regardless, it's insanity.

[PhillyJack]

I have to say that after a number of Cruise-bashing stories about Valkyrie I wasn't expecting much from this movie. Tom Cruise was utterly brilliant. I actually watched the movie twice because I found it really good in every aspect.

[Chubbster]

I find it so unlikely that Cruise made a movie worth the ticket price I'll have to see it.

[mmfleming]

We saw it this weekend with the same misgivings. But it turns out to be a really good movie. Even though everyone knows the ending from history , the film is able to crank the tension all the way through. Cruise has finally grown into his face and came off quite credibly as the hero.

[rabit818]

I don't see the current owners/museums of famous artworks suing anybody (or a film company that made $$$) for using the likeness. Attention current owners of the Mona Lisa: copyright your piece immediately. This is simply ridiculous.

[derWahrheit]

But profitable, perhaps.

[lorita]

basically you don't have any idea how copyright laws work, ESPECIALLY in film. to reproduce any known artwork in film you must have permission...any product the same, etc...in other words, if an object/art­work/image is NOT in the public domain, you need to have permission to use it. it's not that complex to understand. this is a huge mistake by the art dept., clearances and the studio legal dept. that overlooked this HUGE mistake. btw, i make my living working in film as an art director, this is abasic part of our job!

[tantamnt]

Q?-How would that apply to a historically significant object whose image has been in the public domain for over 60 years separate from the object itself such as historical photo's of Hitler with the globe?

[Principaldad]

If an artwork is protected by an active copyright then you would be correct. However, Mr. Pritikin has no legal claim to a copyright. In fact, his claim to the globe itself is suspect.

First, any copyright would remain with the original creator or manufacturer, in this case the mapmaker.

Second, although copyrights are sometimes transmitted with the sale of an original work of art, this is not an original work of art. It was a manufactured item (probably mass produced). No transfer of copyright could possibly be construed. It is no different than buying any other mass produced antique.

Also, Mr. Pritikin did not obtain the glove from the copyright owner. In fact, he obtained it from someone who did not have clear title. The German government could very well demand return of the item because of its historical significance.

Last, the studio may well have researched the globe like all other pieces in the film. If so, they probably cleared its use with the REAL copyright owner or found that the owner was no longer in business (placing it in the public domain).

[lwilkerson50]

I went to see this movie. It was a great historical movie. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it. It was good to see that there were soldiers working for the cause against Hitler. But oh so sad. Will not give the ending just in case some have not gone to see it.

[JLRoberson]

[the addick]

Did Pritikin ever consider just doing the only right thing, and destroy the effing thing?

[derWahrheit]

Certainly not while there is money to be made!

[Praedor]

No matter how you feel about Nazis or Hitler, the googaws (art, equipment, etc) produced by them from that period are valid, worthy historical artifacts. Destroying them would itself be a crime.

Just as it would be a crime to destroy any googaws from the greater monster than Hitler: Stalin.

Leave historical works and artifacts alone.