Scoop’s Views

Owner of Shrek’s real-life model
wants more money for ‘care’

People representing Dreamworks approached a California man who had a donkey named Perry. In exchange for being allowed to take photos, probably some video, and a bunch of sketches of Perry being, well, a donkey — or is that dunn-kee? — the owner was paid $75.

The $75 was easy money. The owner didn’t have to do anything, and well, Perry the dunn-kee was, well, enjoying himself in the field. Now, years after “Shrek” has become popular, Perry the dunn-kee’s owner thinks he is entitled to more munn-ee.

There’s a slideshow at Philadelphia WCAU TV 10 (aka NBC10) featuring the jackass and his jackass of an owner/caretaker.

The slideshow implies the jackass’ caretaker, who is proving to be a bigger jackass than the animal he allows to wander in a field, says the donkey was a major reason the “Shrek” series have been such a success.

Now that the Shrek-dom has spawned yet another movie, the jackass’ owner seems to think he ought get a cut of the profits from Dreamworks.

When I grew up, one of the major principles I learned was that you accept not a cent more than the agreed amount. What’s that mean? If you agree to work at a burger joint, flipping burgers and splashing frozen slices of potato into oil all day, earning but $5.15 per hour, then don’t hold out your hand come payday, thinking you are worth more than your $5.15.

The same holds true with the donkey’s jackass, er, caretaker. He agreed to let folks from Dreamworks take photos, make sketches, and whatever else they needed to do while the donkey did donkey stuff. He was given $75, and apparently, at the time, he was more than satisfied. If he weren’t, well, he could have said no.

See, the funny thing about taking pictures outside is that if something is in the open, say, a person walking down the street, anyone can take your photo and use it for anything they want. As long as they don’t derive profit from it, they do not need your consent.

If they do something with your likeness, well, you have cause to sue. Then again, you can sue just cause someone looked at you, if you like. Suing people and corporations, it seems, has become a major hobby in the United States, sadly, and people sue for some of the most stupid reasons one can imagine, and then some!

Now, if someone takes your photo and decides they want to use that photo, along with your likeness, they must obtain a model release. If they don’t, well, that door for lawsuits is wide open.

When it comes to animals, though, I am not so sure there’s a law on the books that covers their “likeness,” much like that of humans. If there is, well, prove it is the same dog or cat, or, in this case, a dunn-kee.

The funny part of this comes in with this jackass. He thinks he ought be paid more for the “care” of the animal. What?!?! Dreamworks had people around the animal for a few hours, and now, suddenly, they are responsible for this animal’s life, health, care, and well-being? Not hardly!

People really need to learn that when they make an agreement, they need to abide by that agreement, and if they want to change the deal later, someone says, “Tough luck.”

Did Dreamworks need his donkey? No. Does the Shrek donkey look remotely like his donkey? No. Case closed.

Technorati Tags: attorneys, California donkey, Dreamworks, donkey, Donkey, Eddie Murphy, ethics, jackass, jackasses, lawyers, ogres, photos, rich, Shrek, Shrek and Donkey