The New York Post reports today that the owner of a historical artifact – one that an American soldier plucked from Hitler’s “Eagle’s Nest” in the Bavarian Alps at the close of World War II – is contemplating legal action against United Artists for the prominent use of a replica of the globe in the latest Tom Cruise film, Bryan Singer’s Valkyrie. Alternately, reading the article, it appears he would be happy to sell them the artifact…
The full “Page Six” story by Paul Froelich can be found on the New York Post website (see ACHTUNG! TOM’S GLOBE A NO-NO):
Robert Pritkin, an advertising executive, owns a number of Hitler and Nazi artifacts (among his art collection valued at $40 million dollars), including the globe in question, which was used to plan U-boat attacks from his “Eagle’s Nest”. Mr. Pritkin won the globe at auction in 2007, paying approximately $100,000. For more details, see The Daily Mail Online (Sold: Hitler’s globe fetches £50,000 at auction – five times its estimate):
Following the acquisition, the Post reports that he had the globe’s “likeness copyrighted to keep it from being used in propaganda by sick neo-Nazi groups”.
Also per the Post, Pritkin’s investigator Paul Barresi states:
Pritikin believes the globe should be used as a teaching tool so the lessons of Hitler’s nightmare can keep history from repeating itself.
The story also reports:
Pritikin recently put the Hitler items up for sale through businessman Peter Marino and hopes Cruise may buy them. “I think it would be a wonderful gesture of good will on Tom Cruise’s part to purchase the globe along with all of the other Hitler artifacts owned by Mr. Pritikin and donate them to the Wiesenthal Center,” Barresi said. Added Hanks: “It would be a hell of a way for Tom Cruise to save the day for United Artists and be a real-life hero.”
Given that the film, Valkyrie, is not pro-Nazi propaganda, and United Artists is not a “sick neo-Nazi group”, it is difficult to understand what the objection is to the use of a replica of a historic artifact used in a film depicting events from the war. Is not the Bryan Singer film a “teaching tool”, of sorts?
In any event, the notion of copyrighting the likeness of an artifact that is purchased (not an artistic work created by the one seeking the copyright) is interesting, as it is not something I have heard of before this news report.
Jason De Bord