James Bond actors can't wear tuxedos in private life

[snopes]

Comment: A co-worker told me that anyone who signs on to play the title
character in a James Bond film also signs away the rights to his own image
in a tuxedo. So if Pierce Brosnan were to wear a tuxedo to his wedding or
to the Oscars, he would be in violation of his agreement as a former Bond.
Is this true?

[Tootsie Plunkette]

Of course it's true!

[snopes]

Ah, but Sean Connery didn't play the "title character" -- Joseph Wiseman, Gert Fröbe (et al) did.

- snopes

[Tootsie Plunkette]

So, even if the 'title character' doesn't wear a tuxedo in the film, he (or she) can't ever wear a tuxedo after doing the film? Wow. OK.



What about other formal wear?

[diddy]

I believe the requirement only extends to movies and wearing a full tux and that only applies to movies within a certain time frame. You cannot reasonably expect an actor to sign the rights to wearing a particular piece of clothing that is not unique to a series of movies.

[Griffin2020]

Originally Posted by snopes

Ah, but Sean Connery didn't play the "title character" -- Joseph Wiseman, Gert Fröbe (et al) did.

- snopes

But he did play Bond, seven times on screen (only one of which is considered non-canon), and once as a voice-actor (From Russia With Love video game)

[Tarquin Farquart]

What would happen if a former James Bond was invited to a black-tie event? Could he wear whatever he wanted citing this?

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

What would happen if a former James Bond was invited to a black-tie event? Could he wear whatever he wanted citing this?

Again, even if there any restriction it applied to movies while under contact. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan are no longer under contract by Sony/MGM/UA. TO demand they refrain from wearing Tuxes is unreasonable. Especially when you consider that the actor doesnt wear Tuxes the entire movie. In every single movie scenes exist where the Bonds dress rather casually.

[Radical Dory]

Originally Posted by Griffin2020

But he did play Bond, seven times on screen (only one of which is considered non-canon), and once as a voice-actor (From Russia With Love video game)

I think snopes was pointing out that the "title characters" in this case are actually Dr. No, who was played by Joseph Wiseman, and Goldfinger, who was played by Gert Fröbe. None of the movies in the series actually have the words "James Bond" in the title. A better way to phrase the OP would have been "main character."

I've heard this rumor before, but only applied to on-screen roles and only while they were under contract as Bond, which seems to be a more reasonable restriction.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by TheLazenby

Oh, they've publicly exploited James Bond before...

George Lazenby appeared as Bond on two other occasions - once in the movie "The Return of the Man From UNCLE" (where they called him 'JB'), and once on the TV series "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" (where they called him "James"). I also seem to remember seeing footage of a UNICEF affair where Roger Moore (a very prominent UNICEF ambassador nowadays) appeared as "007".

And as for Sean Connery, what about "Never Say Never Again"? He starred as James Bond 007 (no variation on his name), and that movie was made without the permission of EON Productions.

Cannonball run where Roger Moore played wealthy playboy Seymour Goldfarb, Jr, who got girls by pretending to be Roger Moore.

[snopes]

I think the gist of it is that an actor can't make commercial use (or publicly exploit) a character he portrays on film without the permission of the rightsholder. (That's why Clayton Moore, for example, had to abandon wearing the Lone Ranger mask and switch to sunglasses.)

However, that type of restriction surely wouldn't cover a private activity such as wearing ordinary apparel (e.g., a tuxedo) to a non-commercial function.

- snopes

[Anyte]

In The Thomas Crown Affair, Pierce Brosnan (who was still under contract as Bond at the time) wears a tux minus the tie, supposedly to circumvent this rule.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Anyte

In The Thomas Crown Affair, Pierce Brosnan (who was still under contract as Bond at the time) wears a tux minus the tie, supposedly to circumvent this rule.

Thomas Crown Affair was also a MGM picture. The Bond movies are owned by MGM/UA (now part of Sony). The contract wouldn't apply since he was under contract by the same studio.

[TheLazenby]

Oh, they've publicly exploited James Bond before...

George Lazenby appeared as Bond on two other occasions - once in the movie "The Return of the Man From UNCLE" (where they called him 'JB'), and once on the TV series "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" (where they called him "James"). I also seem to remember seeing footage of a UNICEF affair where Roger Moore (a very prominent UNICEF ambassador nowadays) appeared as "007".

And as for Sean Connery, what about "Never Say Never Again"? He starred as James Bond 007 (no variation on his name), and that movie was made without the permission of EON Productions.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by TheLazenby

And as for Sean Connery, what about "Never Say Never Again"? He starred as James Bond 007 (no variation on his name), and that movie was made without the permission of EON Productions.

Thats because EON productions allowed him due to a lawsuit regarding the authorship of Thunderball (Kevin McClory wrote most of it and Fleming took it and never credited him resulting in the suit:

Broccoli and Saltzman's production company EON Productions later made a deal with McClory for Thunderball to be made into a film in 1965, consequently allowing McClory sole producing credit for the adaptation. McClory additionally retained the rights to remake the film after ten years had elapsed.

MGM owns NSNA after buying Orion Pictures. It just isn;t canon.

Originally Posted by snopes

I think the gist of it is that an actor can't make commercial use (or publicly exploit) a character he portrays on film without the permission of the rightsholder. (That's why Clayton Moore, for example, had to abandon wearing the Lone Ranger mask and switch to sunglasses.)

According to Wikipedia, even that was unsuccessful:

In 1979 the owner of the Ranger character, Jack Wrather, obtained a court order prohibiting Moore from making future appearances as The Lone Ranger. Wrather anticipated making a new film version of the story, and did not want the value of the character being undercut by Moore's appearances, nor anyone to think that the 65-year-old Moore would be playing the role in the new picture. This move proved to be a public relations disaster of the first order. Moore responded by changing his costume slightly and replacing the mask with similar-looking wraparound sunglasses, and then counter-sued Wrather. He eventually won the suit, and was able to resume his appearances in costume, which he continued to do until shortly before his death.

-Tim

[Recklessmess]

Originally Posted by snopes

I think the gist of it is that an actor can't make commercial use (or publicly exploit) a character he portrays on film without the permission of the rightsholder. (That's why Clayton Moore, for example, had to abandon wearing the Lone Ranger mask and switch to sunglasses.)

However, that type of restriction surely wouldn't cover a private activity such as wearing ordinary apparel (e.g., a tuxedo) to a non-commercial function.

- snopes

Technically, you can contract away whatever you want, so long as there's bargain and consideration involved. The actor receives consideration for signing his rights to wear a tuxedo away when he is compensated for performing his part in the film. The question then turns to whether it's a lifetime restriction or it's only good for so long. If I remember correctly, the statute of frauds may prevent such a contract since it can't be completed within a specific period of time, but I've no idea whether MGM is situated in a jurisdiction that uses the SOF.

I've a feeling the person who asked this question may have confused contractual issues with intellectual property issues, in which case, I feel that unless the person that portrayed Bonds is actually portraying a very Bonds-like character in another film, there is no issue here.

I've heard of people signing their rights to sue away, or rights of visitation, but I've never heard of tuxedo rights.