Tom Cruise May Face Legal Action Over Hitler Globe reports that the collector who bought the famous "Hitler's globe" may sue for use of a likeness of the globe in Cruise's recent film Valkyrie, "the thriller about a real-life plot to assassinate Hitler." The article reports that 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." Whew, what a relief!

(Cross-posted at LewRockwell.com.)

I do not understand this. How is it possible for him to copyright what would be a public domain work?

Can I do that with my music library? I would not mind suing the RIAA for making copies of my music.

Amazing, how does he believe copyright accretes to him through the purchase of an item?

Currently we have an insane approach to copyright/patents that seems to disassociate so-called intellectual property from the actual possession of the physical property. For example you buy a CD with music, but the copyright holder claims that you have no copyright privileges such as transferring one music tract from the CD to an MP3 device. Not only that but copyright holders seem to also assert, through license agreements, that rights can be infinitely segregated. For example you have a license to the content in Austria but you need a separate license for Australia. In the extreme ludicrous situation you need one license to play content between the hours of 1AM and 2AM versus 6PM and 7PM.

This one more example of how ridiculous our copyright/patent law has become. So where is the supposed proof that he has an entitlement to a copyright privilege?

(PS: Would this even be subject to US law or would German law at the time of creation apply?)

This claim seems extremely dubious: Copyrights & Campaigns blog

The Huffington Post article states: "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."

Seems that a case could be made that this was stolen property and that Pritikin would be obligated to return it to whoever the rightful owner would be today.

The Independent in 2000 had the following article: "Nazi loot returned to owner" This is one of many such articles. The Independent wrote: "But new research by the Bavarian State Collections in Munich and the Commission for Looted Art in Europe showed the triptych had been unlawfully taken from the Gotthilf family, who later changed their name to Glanville." Actually the issue was not simple, but complicated. Nevertheless, the point is that this globed was looted.