Original sentence: A commonly-cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her Right of Publicity is commercialized by third parties.Indiana is believed to have the most far-reaching Right of Publicity statutes in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual "name, image and likeness," but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms.There are other notable characteristics of the Indiana law, though most of the major movement in Right of Publicity emanates from New York and California, with a significant body of case law which suggest two potentially contradictory positions with respect to recognition of the Right of Publicity
Edited sentence: Indiana is known for having perhaps the most progressive (or far-reaching, depending on how you look at it) Right of Publicity statutes in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual lineup of "name, image and likeness," but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms.One of the most compelling justifications for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her Right of Publicity is commercialized by third parties.There are other notable characteristics of the Indiana law, though most of the major tectonic movement in Right of Publicity emanates from New York and California, with a fascinating (if perplexing) body of case law on the books and two radically different positions with respect to recognition of the Right of Publicity