Category: Rights of Publicity

Share via email

Are you a nobody? A celebrity? Not sure? Fortunately for you, it doesn’t matter. You have rights. Specifically, rights to control any commercial use of your name, image, likeness, or some other identifying aspect of identity, limited (under U.S. law) by the First Amendment. See Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953).This “right of publicity” is sometimes referred to as publicity rights or even personality rights.

In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., the U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled on your rights of publicity, holding that the First Amendment did not immunize a television station from liability for broadcasting a person’s act (specifically, Hugo Zacchini’s human cannonball act) without consent. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled before or since.

The most common variety of public rights litigation involves use of a celebrity’s images or likeness without their permission. You probably aren’t a celebrity if you haven’t had your name and likeness misappropriated. But it’s not just the living.  The dead are just as likely to be misappropriated. In 2003, John Dillinger’s grandnephew sued Dillinger’s restaurant for using the 1930s gangster and bank robber’s name, image, and likeness. The grandnephew lost because the jurisdiction (Indiana) only enacted its publicity rights statute in 1994.

In another publicized case, a federal judge ruled that Marilyn Monroe’s rights of publicity weren’t protectable in California because she was domiciled in New York when she died. California has tough publicity laws, New York has none for deceased celebrities.

Rights of publicity aren’t without limitations though. The great Jim Brown sued EA Sports using a false endorsement theory under the Lanham Act, but the court held that the First Amendment protects the unauthorized use of a trademark in an artistic work when the mark has artistic relevance to the work and does not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the work. Applying this test, the court found a lack of implied endorsement and held that the First Amendment protected EA in its use of a virtual football player that resembled Mr. Brown.

Publicity rights are generally considered property rights which are assignable (as opposed to personal rights which generally do not survive the owner).

Generally, you have the right to be free from unwarranted publicity or the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of your personality and the publicizing of your private affairs, but only when the public has no legitimate concern. In turn, the public concern exception is limited when the publicity becomes a wrongful intrusion into your private activities in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

A movie that has already been plagued by lawsuits, first with the claim by a tattoo artist that the tattoo appearing on Ed Helms’ face infringed his copyrighted tattoo (as used on Mike Tyson’s face), and a horrible accident that has caused substantial damage to a stunt man, which is still in court, can now add another one to its list.

 

Michael Alan Rubin has recently filed a suit against Warner Brothers, among others, claiming that the premise of the movie was stolen from a script he wrote and submitted to the Writers Guild.  In Rubin’s story, he allegedly married a woman in Japan in 2007 and honeymooned in Thailand and India.  During their trip, the two began not to see eye-to-eye, and that is where his “Robinson Crusoe” begins.  His story was cleverly titled, “Mickey and Kirin.”

 

Once he found out about the movie, he filed suit for copyright infringement, misappropriation of his publicity rights, and defamation.  Also, I do want to note that Rubin is going it alone (I wonder if he learned to be an attorney on his adventures in the East?).

 

As some of you may know, one way to prove ownership of a copyright and bring a lawsuit for copyright infringement is through a copyright registration.  In Rubin’s case, he holds a copyright registration for “Mickey and Kirin” through a Registration Certificate issued by the U.S. Copyright Office.  The date of creation is claimed as 2009 and the date of registration is July 1, 2011.

 

As for misappropriation of his publicity rights and defamation, I see a tougher road ahead of the man.  I have not read the complaint, but I will have to assume that Rubin is claiming that the group of the Hangover is representing his likeness as a whole.  If not, I wonder which actor he claims his likeness to (from what the ladies say, I would think he would go with Bradley Cooper).  The defamation claim, in particular, will be difficult because one of the main defenses to defamation is “truth.”  If his story was used like he said it was, then the story is being claimed as a real life experience, and the movie is simply portraying a “truth.”

 

I would go out on a limb and predict that this claim would settle out of court, but Rubin is representing himself in this case.  I can see pride becoming an issue with Rubin, and since he doesn’t have to pay a monthly lawyer bill, he may be able to take this case to the end (withstanding all the motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, etc.).  Cheers.

Share via email

 By: Rene Dial

Old Navy getting sued over look alike.

At first thought this sounded crazy.  How can a celebrity sue a company for using a model that just happens to look like the celebrity?  So if you happen to be a model and look like a celebrity are you no longer allowed to work because the public may think you are the celebrity?  Really?  Old Navy is not claiming that she is Kim Kardashian but are they trying to deceive the public.  TMZ.COM has a copy of the actual complaint that was filed on July 20, 2011. 

Lets look at the law the complaint cites.

First, the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) “(a) Civil action (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which— (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”

California Code 3344 “(a) Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.”

After reading through the resume’, I mean complaint, allegation 32 pretty much boils down what this is all about. 

         I watched the “Super Cutie” ad (strictly for research) and I do not see where Old Navy used Kim Kardashian’s name.  However, after reading through various online articles the only place that I read where they actually used her name was in a tweet, to Kim Kardashian herself, that their model looked a lot like Kim Kardashian.  Was the tweet Old Navy’s disclaimer to the public that the model is in fact not Kim Kardashian or was it a bad move admitting they intended the model to look like Kim Kardashian.  Not sure.  However, in a few parts of the commercial you can see the resemblance.  The ad seemed more of a parody than intentionally trying to deceive the public into believing that she is promoting Old Navy.

Read the Lanham Act and California Code 3344 and see what you think.  Kardashian has a pretty good case if she can get discovery or evidence proving that Old Navy intended the model to look like her to deceive the public.  There is an old saying that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” unless you are Kim Kardashian.

Click here to watch the video and decide if you are confused.

Share via email

By: Aaron B. Thalwitzer

A Chinese company, MIC Gadget has stopped selling a Steve Jobs doll action figure after receiving a cease and desist letter from Apple’s lawyers stating that it violated Apple trademarks and copyrights.   The question is, why? The doll action figure is quite realistic, and doesn’t create any confusion, or cast Apple or Mr. Jobs in a bad light. Sure, the base is shaped like the Apple logo, but that’s a quick fix. And notice that SJ’s holding the iPhone 4 with the infamous Death Grip (which may or not be intentional on the maker’s part).

But, to my eyes, this presents an opportunity for Apple to do more than protect their perceived or actual intellectual property rights. MIC Gadget was on to something here and Apple could benefitted from it. Perhaps a tie-in to promote the forthcoming next-gen iPad? An all-proceeds-go-to-charity sale? A Geico Lizard-esque commercial featuring the SJ action figure? Or, as posted on Slashdot, could it be that Apple is concerned that their followers (myself included) are purchasing lead-painted false idols?

Or maybe Apple is policing its personality rights (which are proving to be a very dynamically changing landscape; a topic best saved for another day).

MIC eventually announced that Apple’s cease and desist letter stated, “Unauthorized use of a person’s name and/or likeness constitutes a violation of California Civil Code Section 3344, which prohibits the use of any person’s name, photograph or likeness in a product without that person’s prior consent . . .” A little research verified that Section 3344 protects the publicity rights of living persons. So, for better or worse, Apple probably has a point. But they’re still a total buzzkill.

Share via email

by Jason Fischer

Earlier this week, Lindsay Lohan filed a $100 million suit against online financial services company, E-Trade. In her complaint (you can read it here), Ms. Lohan accuses E-Trade of appropriating her likeness in its Super Bowl ad, wherein the spokesbaby’s girlfriend accuses him of not calling her because he was with “that milkaholic, Lindsay.”

Subscribe

Login



SATURDAY, MAY 18, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 8442 access attempts in the last 7 days.