Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/68534485-Case-western-reserve-journal-of-law-technology-the-internet-volume-1-number-2-spring-reshma-amin-table-of-contents.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:25:33+00:00

Document:
Download "Case Western Reserve Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet Volume 1, Number 2 Spring Reshma Amin * TABLE OF CONTENTS"
1 Case Western Reserve Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet Volume 1, Number 2 Spring 2010 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA S RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM S APPROACH TO THE PROTECTION OF CELEBRITIES: WHERE ARE THEY BETTER PROTECTED? Reshma Amin * TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...93 II. HISTORY OF THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY IN THE UNITED STATES...97 A. Origins: Right of Privacy...97 B. Technological Advances and the Recognition of Commercial Exploitation...99 C. Prosser and Birth of the Right of Publicity...99 III. MODERN RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA A. Introduction B. Common Law Right of Publicity C. Civil Code D. Expansion of Common Law Protection and Civil Code E. The Right of Publicity as Property: Goldman v. Simpson IV. UNITED KINGDOM A. Introduction B. Intellectual Property Causes of Action Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of Trade Marks Act Passing Off C. Industry Specific Regulatory Codes The Advertising Codes The Press Complaints Commission D. Human Rights Act * J.D., Case Western Reserve University, This student Comment was revised in Fall 2009.
2 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 93 V. WHERE ARE CELEBRITIES BETTER PROTECTED VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION For almost a century, society has grown increasingly obsessed with celebrities and what they portray. Celebrities are idolized for attaining a status very few can attain. Society s treatment of celebrities signals to the world that somehow these individuals are fundamentally different. Celebrity work entails acting, playing sports, and often posing for the camera. Celebrities live glamorously, arrive on red carpets, and attend exclusive events. Celebrities receive generous if not outlandish salaries. The public clings onto every item of clothing, outing, relationship, television show, endorsement, and newly released movie in which our favorite celebrities appear. It is no wonder that the most famous celebrities are usually the highest paid, and whose private lives suffer the most exploitation. Celebrities are extremely vulnerable to exploitation because their earning potential is based in large part on the value of their image. The image celebrities attain is essentially their appearance, the talent associated with their appearance, and the marketability that results. Celebrities are entitled to the market value their image generates, 1 and to sufficient protection from those who attempt to exploit their celebrity status for their own economic purposes. For example, Michael Jordan has profited from the creation of Air Jordan sneakers. Many believe that by purchasing these sneakers, they too can excel in basketball. Jordan has commercialized his ability to play a certain sport. He has projected this ability onto an eponymous line of sneakers. Celebrities such as Jordan seek legal protection because they are continually subject to third parties intrusive attempts to profit off of their image. 2 1 Melville B. Nimmer, The Right of Publicity, 19 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 203, 216 (1954). 2 E.g., Complaint at 6, 29-33, Jordan & Jump 23, Inc., v. Dominick s Finer Foods, L.L.C., (Ill. Cir. Dec. 21, 2009) (No. 2009LO15548) (noting how Jordan sued a grocery store for the unauthorized use of his identity and persona in an advertisement under Illinois Right of Publicity Act, 765 ILL. COMP. STAT. 1075/1-60 (2009)).
4 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 95 highest value to goods that are not widely distributed. By adding clothes wrongfully bearing Jackson s image to the marketplace, the photographer reduced the relative value of clothes authorized to bear Jackson s image. Next, suppose a cleaning company outfits an actor in a red jacket and white glove and instructs him to say, Moon walk your way to a shinier floor, as he holds a mop and moonwalks across a shiny floor. If this use of Jackson s likeness is unauthorized, the right of publicity would enable Jackson s estate to recover damages. The right of publicity protects celebrities and public figures from any exploitation of their image or likeness in connection with commercial products. Thus, while in this scenario the company only uses a Michael Jackson impersonator, there is infringement because the red jacket and white glove are unique to Jackson s image. Similarly, in a commercial for an amusement park, imagine that a Jackson-impersonator is singing the chorus to Jackson s song Thriller as an image of the park s newest rollercoaster is displayed across the screen. Here too, Jackson s estate is entitled to compensation for the park s unauthorized use of his voice in conjunction with the sale of goods or services. 8 Jackson does not have a claim for copyright infringement because a copyright action would not provide recovery for the use of his vocal styling. 9 Jackson s estate could bring a claim under the a result thereof. CAL. CIV. CODE (a)(1) (West 1997 & Supp. 2009). Note, however, that under (a)(2) the law contains an exemption for uses that occur in a play, book, magazine, newspaper, musical composition, audiovisual work, radio or television program, single and original work of art, work of political or newsworthy value, or an advertisement or commercial announcement for any of these works if it is fictional or nonfictional entertainment, or a dramatic, literary, or musical work. See also Astaire v. Best Film Video Corp., 136 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9 th Cir. 1998) (use of a deceased dancer in educational and instructional videos, was exempted under CAL. CIV. CODE 990). The California code 990 was later renumbered by Stats.1999, c (S.B.284), 9.5. See infra note 91. For purposes of this example, assume that the use of Jackson s image occurs in a state where a celebrity s right of publicity is descendible. 8 See Midler v. Ford Motor Company, 849 F.2d 460, 463 (9 th Cir. 1988) (holding that commercial use of an emulation of Bette Midler s voice, without her prior authorization, was actionable, because her voice was distinctive, widely known, and recognizable); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION 46 (1995) (a person s voice is recognized as an attribute that deserves protection under the right of publicity). 9 Midler, 849 F.2d at 492 ( A voice is not copyrightable. The sounds are not fixed. ).
5 96 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & THE INTERNET [Vol. 1:96 right of publicity for the appropriation of his voice because his singing style is a unique, intangible asset, which undoubtedly increases the value of his image. 10 Depending on the laws of the geographical location in which a celebrity resides, there are differing levels of publicity protection. 11 Both California and the United Kingdom are home to a large populace of celebrities and public figures. The epicenter of the entertainment industry, California, provides its celebrities with extensive protection under both common law and statutory rights of publicity. In contrast, the United Kingdom does not recognize the right of publicity. This Comment examines how California and the United Kingdom address commercial exploitation of celebrities and public figures. Through its comparison, this Comment determines which location provides celebrities with a wider array of protection, and what types of commercial exploitation celebrities are protected against. Part II begins with a discussion of the right of privacy, and the subsequent birth of the right of publicity. Part III highlights California s right of publicity, and the rights that the law currently affords celebrities. Part IV discusses the methods through which celebrities and public figures are awarded rights in the United Kingdom. It also explores the current trend towards expansion of celebrities rights with the enactment of the Human Rights Bill. Part V compares California and the United Kingdom, and discusses the need for modification and harmonization of divergent laws against commercial exploitation. 10 Id. at Laws vary greatly between American states as well. For example, California s right of publicity is quite expansive, as state courts recognize both the common and statutory law cause of action for the right of publicity. New York, in comparison, does not recognize a common law right of publicity, and only retains the right statutorily. See, e.g., Sheldon W. Halpern, The Right of Publicity: Maturation of an Independent Right Protecting the Associative Value of Personality, 46 HASTINGS L.J. 856, 856 (1995).
6 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 97 II. HISTORY OF THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY IN THE UNITED STATES A. Origins: Right of Privacy The right of privacy was one of the few sources of relief, other than defamation and libel, that celebrities could turn to when others appropriated their image. As originally proposed in the United States, the right of privacy was described as the right to be let alone. 12 Liability was imposed on those who caused harm by invading the privacy of others. 13 The right of privacy is grounded in tort law, and is based upon the work of Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, who co-wrote the influential article The Right of Privacy. 14 Warren and Brandeis argued that individuals have the right to protect themselves from invasions into their personal quiet zone[s]. 15 They believed an individual should control the degree and type of private personal information that is made public. 16 Warren and Brandeis recognized that invasions into one s privacy, specifically invasions resulting in personal information going public, 17 were harmful. 18 They urged society to articulate a principle which may be invoked to protect the privacy of the individual from invasion either by the too enterprising press, the photographer, or the possessor of any other modem device for recording or reproducing scenes or sounds. 19 The article primarily focused on private life invasions, and the scope of protection it envisioned was narrow. 20 Despite the publication of Brandeis and Warren s 12 THOMAS M. COOLEY, LAW OF TORTS OR THE WRONGS WHICH ARISE INDEPENDENT OF CONTRACT 29 (2d ed., 1888). 13 See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 652A(1) (1977). 14 Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right of Privacy. 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890). 15 Id. at Id. 17 See Dorothy J. Glancy, The Invention of The Right to Privacy, 21 ARIZ. L. REV. 1, 6 (1979) (noting that the catalyst for Warren s writing the article [The Right of Privacy] was his pique upon finding intimate details of his family s home life in the society pages of the local newspaper The Saturday Evening Gazette). 18 Warren & Brandeis, supra note 14, at Id. at See Glancy, supra note 17, at 6.
7 98 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & THE INTERNET [Vol. 1:98 article, the right of privacy was still not widely accepted. 21 Courts remained reluctant to provide relief to those whose images were appropriated. 22 In Roberson v. Rochester, 23 a flour mill obtained and sold lithographic prints displaying the plaintiff s unauthorized portrait on its products. The products were in wide circulation. The plaintiff was humiliated when friends and family recognized her image on the goods for sale. She sought an injunction to prevent the products continued circulation. The plaintiff asked for damages for the mental distress she incurred from the scoffs and jeers of persons who have recognized her face and picture on this advertisement, and her good name [being] attacked 24 The court disagreed, and refused to recognize the plaintiff s right of privacy. 25 In its decision, the court explained that such publicity, which some find agreeable, is to plaintiff very distasteful she has been caused to suffer mental distress where others would have appreciated the compliment to their beauty. 26 The court characterized the circulation of the plaintiff s picture as a compliment, rather than an invasion of her privacy, or her right to control the dissemination of her image. Predicting that recognition of a privacy right would open the floodgates for litigation and cause an over-expansion of rights afforded under the right of privacy, the Robertson court refused to recognize the plaintiff s privacy right Diane Lieenheer Zimmerman, Who Put the Right in the Right of Publicity, 9 DEPAUL-LCA J. ART & ENT. L. 35, 41 (1999) (noting that although it has been estimated that as many as half of the states in the United States recognize a right of publicity, a careful head count reveals that only about a dozen have taken unambiguous steps to create a true property right ). 22 See Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N.Y. 538 (N.Y. 1902), superseded by statute, NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 50 (1909), as recognized in People v. King, 84 N.Y.2d 1034 (N.Y. 1995) N.Y. 538 (N.Y. 1902). 24 Id. at Id. at Id. at Roberson, 171 N.Y. at 545 (N.Y. 1902), superseded by statute, New York Civil Rights Act 50 (1909), as recognized in People v. King, 84 N.Y.2d 1034 (N.Y. 1995).
8 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 99 B. Technological Advances and the Recognition of Commercial Exploitation The advent of new technology facilitated society s growing obsession with celebrities. Technology aided and encouraged a new wave of celebrity exploitation. The 19 th century saw the arrival of photography, motion pictures, and radio. 28 The number of methods the media and general public could use to exploit celebrities increased substantially. Celebrities began to see their images in newspapers and on consumer products. Where these uses were unauthorized, the commercial benefit of the product s celebrity association went exclusively to a third party. 29 Appropriations of this nature were actionable only under the right of privacy, and courts were unwilling to award damages for additional publicity. Wide public exposure was, after all, what celebrities relied on for continued professional success. 30 C. Prosser and Birth of the Right of Publicity Celebrities seeking remedy for the commercial misappropriation of their likeness under privacy law 31 were continuously unsuccessful. Courts were reluctant to award damages to those who became well known through intentionally seeking celebrity status. 32 It was courts reluctance to recognize injury for public exploitation that compelled development of a common law and statutory right of publicity. The right of publicity protects well-known individuals by giving them a right to control the commercial use of their attributes Fox Talbot invented photographs in Thomas Edison invented the motion picture camera in The radio was invented by Guglielmo Marconi in See MARY WARNER MARIEN, PHOTOGRAPHY: A CULTURAL HISTORY 17 (2002). 29 In O Brien v. Pabst Sales Co., 124 F.2d 167 (5 th Cir. 1941), a famous college football player authorized the publicity department at his university to distribute his picture to newspapers and magazines. The Pabst Brewery Company used the player s picture in its football schedules, wherein the player s image was in close proximity to beer advertisements. The player believed the use of his picture was a violation of his right to privacy because it appeared from the schedules that he was endorsing Pabst beer. The Court held that the player s privacy was not infringed, however, because he had made efforts to become publicly known. 30 Id. at RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION 46 (1995). 32 O Brien, 124 F.2d at ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 928 (6th Cir.2003).
9 100 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & THE INTERNET [Vol. 1:100 The first reference to the right of publicity was in the 1953 case Haelan Laboratories Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. 34 There, a baseball player gave a chewing gum company the exclusive right to use his photograph in connection with the sale of its brand name gum. Later, the player entered into a contract with a rival gum manufacturer, which also authorized the use of the player s picture to sell gum. The original company sued the rival company for inducing the player s contract breach. A New York court ruled that the player had granted the original company the exclusive right to use his photograph. In effect, it recognized the player s right of publicity. 35 The court held that the first company, in its capacity as exclusive grantee of player's right of publicity, has a valid claim against the rival company if the rival company used that player's photograph during the term of the [first company s] grant and with knowledge of it. 36 The right of publicity was explicitly articulated in 1960, when Dean William Prosser wrote the influential law review article Privacy. 37 Prosser advocated a privacy right to address growing concerns about celebrities commercial exploitation. In his article, Prosser categorized the invasion of privacy into four separate torts: 38 1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; 2) appropriation of another s name or likeness; 3) unreasonable publicity given to the other s private life; and 4) publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public F.2d 866, 868 (2d Cir. 1953). The right of publicity was first coined by Judge Jerome Frank in Haelan when Frank identified such as a property right. 35 Id. at 868 (holding that in addition to and independent of that right of privacy (which New York derives from statute), a man has a right in the publicity value of his photograph, i.e., the right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing his picture, and that such a grant may validly be made in gross, i.e., without an accompanying transfer of a business or of anything else ) 36 Id. at William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 CAL. L. REV. 383 (1960). 38 Id. at 389. Prosser s delineation of the Right of Privacy was later adopted by the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 652 (1977). 39 See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 652A (1977) (listing the four ways one s privacy can be invaded).
10 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 101 The second categorization evolved into the modern version of the right of publicity. In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 40 the Supreme Court held that a news company violated Ohio law when it televised a human cannonball performer s 15-second performance without attaining the performer s prior permission. 41 The human cannonball performer sued Scripps- Howard for unlawful appropriation of his professional property. 42 Before Ruling in favor of the performer, the Court balanced the First Amendment rights of the news company with the cannonball performer s right of publicity. It also made a distinction between a false light of privacy case and the right of publicity. 43 The Court explained that states had different interests in the two torts. A state has an interest in permitting a false light of privacy claim because it wants to protect parties reputations. 44 In contrast, a state s interest in permitting a right of publicity claim is closely analogous to the goals of patent and copyright law, focusing on the right of the individual to reap the reward of his endeavors and having little to do with protecting feelings or reputation. 45 The Zacchini Court also recognized that there was a difference regarding the dissemination of information to the public 46 in right of publicity and false light of privacy cases. The Court stated: In false light cases the only way to protect the interests involved is to attempt to minimize publication of the damaging matter, while in right of publicity cases the only question is who gets to do the publishing. An entertainer such as petitioner usually has no objection to the widespread publication of his act as long as he gets the commercial benefit of such publication. 47 The Supreme Court held that the broadcast substantially threatened the performer s economic value. Therefore, the U.S. 562 (1977). 41 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. 45 Id. 46 Id. 47 Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562, 573 (1977).
11 102 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & THE INTERNET [Vol. 1:102 broadcast was a violation of the performer s right of publicity. 48 The right of publicity preserves the performer s right to receive compensation for his performance, while simultaneously providing economic incentive for the performer to continue performing. 49 This right of publicity is generally an individual right to control the commercial use of one s name or likeness. 50 The sole requirement for affording protection is that there be some sort of commercial exploitation of the individual. The right of publicity has expanded in many jurisdictions which have recognized it as an extension of privacy rights. In the United States, the rights afforded to celebrities and public figures vary according to geographical location. The common law right of publicity is not recognized in New York, 51 for instance, but in California the scope of the right is quite broad. An examination of the rights currently afforded to celebrities in California will show how rights have been expanded from Prosser s original conception. III. MODERN RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA A. Introduction As the hub of the entertainment industry, California is home to a large contingent of celebrities. The incongruous mix of media and celebrity interests in Hollywood precipitated greater protection for celebrities. California s legislature enacted statutory protection for the right of publicity to supplement its common law. While not always the case, today in California, the right of publicity s scope of protection is expansive. 48 Id. at 575 ( Much of its economic value lies in the right of exclusive control over the publicity given to his performance ; if the public can see the act free on television, it will be less willing to pay to see it at the fair. ). 49 Id. at RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION 46 (1995) (noting that it is a violation of the right of publicity when [o]ne who appropriates the commercial value of a person s identity by using without consent the person s name, likeness, or other indicia of identity for purposes of trade ). 51 See Rhodes v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 85 N. E (N.Y. 1908).
12 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 103 B. Common Law Right of Publicity California is one of the few states to recognize both a common law and statutory cause of action for the right of publicity. 52 In California, the common law right of publicity 53 offers a broader scope of actionable claims than its statutory counterpart. 54 Under statutory law, the type of appropriation, the intent of the infringer, damages, and a connection between the use and the commercial nature of the infringement are all relevant. 55 But similar specificity is not found in the common law, which is comparatively broad in its protection. As such, celebrities have the option to assert a variety of claims under the common law, and courts have the ability to expand protection. 56 Careful analysis of both modes of protection will explain the expansion of the right of publicity. To secure relief, California common law requires the plaintiff prove the following: 1) The defendant s use of the plaintiff s identity; 2) The appropriation of the plaintiff s name or likeness to the defendant s advantage, commercially or otherwise; 3) Lack of consent; and 4) Resulting injury 57 The scope of protection afforded celebrities under common law once limited the attributes of a celebrity that were actionable. 58 Previously, only the use of a celebrity s identity, name, or likeness was actionable under common law. 59 The common law later expanded to make more attributes of a celebrity actionable under the right of publicity. The common law does not require infringers intent in appropriating 52 1 MCCARTHY, supra note 3, at 6:3 (as of 2009, 20 states recognize the common law right of publicity). 53 See, e.g., Eastwood v. Superior Court, 198 Cal. Rptr. 342, 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) superseded in part by statute, CAL. CIVIL CODE 3344 (West 1997 & Supp. 2009). 54 CAL. CIV. CODE 3344 (originally enacted as 990). 55 Id. 56 See Eastwood, 198 Cal.Rptr. at Id.; see KNB Enter. v. Mathews, 92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 713 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). 58 Eastwood, 198 Cal. Rptr. at Id.
13 104 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & THE INTERNET [Vol. 1:104 celebrities identities. 60 At times, an infringer may mistakenly or inadvertently use one s identity, name or likeness. 61 A lack of intent to exploit another s identity is not a defense under the common law. 62 Additionally, the commercial appropriation or otherwise requirement is extremely broad and provides celebrities with even more protection. 63 The rationale for providing celebrities with a right of publicity is to give them control over the commercial appropriation of their attributes. 64 Celebrities need for such protection is premised on the fact that their ability to make a living is based on the commercial value of their image. Appropriately, California s common law gives individuals the right to bring proceedings against those who have appropriated their attributes for commercial purposes. But the common law also leaves an opening for expansion of that right. Namely, the common law stipulates that appropriation of one s identity is actionable if it is done commercially, or otherwise. 65 California courts have addressed types of appropriations that fall under commercial, but they have left open causes of action that may fall under the rubric of otherwise. A commercial use is present when a party uses the plaintiff s identity, name, or likeness in a study aid, 66 or in conjunction with a commercial advertisement. 67 In Fairfield v. American Photocopy Equipment Company, 68 American Photocopy disseminated an advertisement primarily to legal professionals, with the names of attorneys and law firms purportedly using and 60 See Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2001); Butler v. Target Corp., 323 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1056 (C.D. Cal. 2004); Eastwood v. Superior Court, 198 Cal. Rptr. 343, superseded in part by statute, CAL. CIV. CODE 3344 (West 1997 & Supp. 2009). 61 See CAL. CIV. CODE 3344 (West 1997 & Supp. 2009). 62 See Downing, 265 F.3d at 994; Butler, 323 F.Supp.2d at 1052; Eastwood, 198 Cal. Rptr. 3d at See Eastwood, 198 Cal.Rptr. at RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION 46 (1995). 65 Id. 66 See Williams v. Weisser, 78 Cal. Rptr. 542 (Cal. Ct. App.1969) (holding that when a business hired an agent to take class notes and create study aids, which bore the name of the plaintiff professor, the plaintiff had a valid claim for the appropriation of his name). 67 Fairfield v. Am. Photography Equip. Co., 138 Cal. App. 2d 82, 291 P. 2d 194 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1955), superseded in part by statute, CAL. CIVIL CODE 3344 (West 1997 & Supp. 2009) Cal. App. 2d 82, 291 P. 2d 194 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1955).
14 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 105 praising its photocopy machines. The plaintiff s name and location were used without his permission, and without regard to the fact that the plaintiff had returned his machine to the company. 69 Because the company used the attorney s name without his authorization in connection with a commercial product, the attorney s right of publicity claim was actionable. However, not all commercial uses are actionable under the common law. 70 Courts have stated that the common law right of publicity cannot provide relief each time one s name or likeness is published without one s permission. 71 Courts conduct a balancing process by weighing the nature of the precise information conveyed and the context of the communication to determine the public interest in the expression. 72 Although the common law right of publicity provides a seemingly larger scope of protection than its statutory counterpart, it is limited in some respects. Courts will not award relief if the alleged infringing use occurred in conjunction with a newsworthy event, for instance. Additionally, an action for infringement of the right of publicity can only be brought during a celebrity s lifetime. 73 The common law does not provide for publicity claims post mortem. C. Civil Code 3344 The statutory cause of action under California s Civil Code differs from the common law cause of action in two primary ways. First, only the appropriation of individuals identity or likeness for purposes of advertising, selling, or solicitation are actionable under section Additionally, the code requires a claimant to show the defendant used her image or likeness for 69 Id. at E.g., Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball, 114 Cal. Rprt. 2d 307 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding that defendant s publishing past team records, photographs, and player statistics in video histories and online content was for a purpose related to their profession and did not constitute commercial use). 71 Id. at Id. at See Guglielmi v. Spelling Goldberg Productions, 25 Cal. 3d 860, 160 Cal. Rptr. 352 (1979) (holding that the right of publicity is not descendible), superseded by statute, CAL. CIV. CODE (d) (West 1997 & Supp. 2009). 74 CAL. CIV. CODE 3344(a) (West 1997 &West Supp. 2009).
15 106 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & THE INTERNET [Vol. 1:106 a commercial purpose. 75 Second, California Civil Code specifies that an infringer must knowingly use another s attributes without consent. 76 In contrast, under the common law, mistaken or inadvertent use of a celebrity s identity or likeness is actionable. 77 D. Expansion of Common Law Protection and Civil Code A celebrity s control over the commercial appropriation of her attributes was once protected in limited form under California s common law and statutory cause of action for the right of publicity. As new methods of exploitation arose, the courts expanded the common law right of publicity to provide relief not otherwise protected under Civil Code section Additionally, California statutes were amended to provide stronger protection for celebrities. The scope of protection available to celebrities in California has expanded in three fundamental ways. 78 Recently, courts provided protection against the appropriation of one s voice. In Midler v. Ford Motor Company, 79 Bette Midler sought relief from Ford after the company used a voice that resembled hers in a commercial for its cars. The court recognized that a voice could be distinctive of character. Thus, when Ford used Midler s voice without her permission, Ford violated Midler s right of publicity. 80 The court could not award relief under California Civil Code section 3344 because the statute provides protection only when the celebrity s actual voice is used. Here, the advertisement used an imitation of Midler s voice. 81 Where the claim of appropriation fell short of the requirements to gain relief under section 3344, 75 Id. at 3344(e). 76 Id. at 3344(a). 77 See Eastwood v. Superior Court, 198 Cal. Rptr. 342, 347 (Ct. App. 1983), superseded by statute, Cal. Civ. Code 3344 (West 1997 & Supp. 2009), as recognized in KNB Enter. V. Matthews, 92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 713, 717 n.5 (Ct. App. 2000). 78 See 1 MCCARTHY, supra note 3, at 6: F.2d 460, (9 th Cir. 1988) (noting that plaintiff s failure to satisfy a statutory cause of action does not preclude her claim of infringement under the common law). 80 Id. at Id. at 461, 463.
16 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 107 the common law responded by recognizing the appropriation as a valid claim under the right of publicity. However, if the common law cause of action were not expanded, and still only protected the use of a celebrity s identity, name, or likeness, 82 Midler would have been without reprieve. The expansion proves beneficial to celebrities who, through the use of media, have become widely recognizable to the public for more than just their image. Today, celebrities regularly commercialize the recognition and subsequent marketability of their voices. 83 The common law similarly expanded the scope of relief afforded to claims for infringement of likeness. Typically courts held that an unauthorized appropriation of a celebrities likeness was actionable only when used in a picture or for commercial purposes. 84 However, the common law has extended this protection to situations where a picture is not used. 85 In White v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. 86, Samsung used a robot depicting Vanna White in one of its advertisements. The Court held that a robot dressed in a gown, adorned with a blond wig and jewelry, standing next to a board that resembled the game show Wheel of Fortune did amount to a wrongful appropriation of White s likeness. 87 White s claim failed under California Civil Code section 3344 because the robot did not sufficiently portray specific features of White s image. 88 Nevertheless, the Court interpreted the common law to include White s cause of action as a violation of her right of publicity. 89 Finally, enactment of California Civil Code s section , otherwise known as the Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act, 90 expands protection of celebrities right of 82 Eastwood, 198 Cal. Rptr. at See, e.g., SHARK TALE (DreamWorks Animation 2004) (animated movie featuring voiced parts by celebrities Will Smith and Robert DeNiro). 84 Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 498 F.2d 281 (9 th Cir. 1974) (finding that plaintiff had a valid cause of action for violation of his right of publicity after defendant used his likeness in an advertising image). 85 White v. Samsung Electronics Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9 th Cir. 1992) (holding that defendant advertising company appropriated White s identity when dressing a robot in resemblance of her television persona as hostess of a game show). 86 Id. 87 Id. at Id. at Id. at CAL. CIV. CODE (West 1997 & Supp. 2009).
17 108 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & THE INTERNET [Vol. 1:108 publicity after death. Civil Code section protects the unauthorized use of a deceased personality s name, picture, voice, signature, or likeness for purposes of advertising, selling or solicitation. 92 Prior to enactment of section , California courts were forced to adhere to the standard set in Lugosi v. Universal Pictures. 93 Under this standard, there was no post mortem right of publicity. 94 Section expanded common law restrictions on inheritability and transferability by allowing the right to run for seventy years 95 following the death of the individual. 96 The expansion of this right protects a celebrity from exploitation of her image after death. E. The Right of Publicity as Property: Goldman v. Simpson California has adapted to the growing needs of celebrities by expanding the scope of publicity protection offered to individuals. Most recently, the issue of stripping individuals of their publicity rights has confronted California courts. 97 This issue arose as a result of a civil action lawsuit and unfulfilled civil judgment after the acquittal of Orenthal James Simpson on October 3, 1995 for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. 98 The Goldman and Brown families filed wrongful death civil suits soon after Simpson was acquitted. On February 4, 1997, a civil jury found Simpson liable for the deaths of Brown and Goldman. The Court awarded the families $8.5 million in compensatory damages, and $25 million in punitive damages. 91 California s Civil Code section was originally numbered section 990, until 1988 when state legislature renumbered the provision. 92 CAL. CIV. CODE (a) (West 2009) P.2d 425 (Cal. 1979). 94 Id. at CAL. CIV. CODE (g) (West 1997 & Supp. 2009). 96 Before its change to section 3344 in 1988, the Code s section 990 provided that the right of publicity was not freely transferable unless one s identity was commercially valuable at his or her time of death. 97 Laura Hock, Comment, What s In A Name? Fred Goldman s Quest to Acquire O.J. Simpson s Right of Publicity and the Suit s Implications for Celebrities, 35 PEPP. L. REV. 347, 353 (2008) (citing Ron Goldman s Dad Asks for Rights to O.J. Simpson s Image to Pay Off Judgment, FOXNews.com, Sept. 5, 2006, 98 Hock, supra note 97, at 349 (citing GILBERT GEIS & LEIGH B. BIENEN, CRIMES OF THE CENTURY: FROM LEOPOLD AND LOEB TO O.J. SIMPSON 171 (Northwestern University Press 1998)).
18 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 109 Goldman s share of the award totaled approximately $20 million. 99 To date, Simpson has not paid the award. In 2006, Simpson became the subject of controversy when he sought to release a book entitled If I Did It, This Is How It Happened. The book described, hypothetically, how Simpson could have committed the Brown and Goldman murders. 100 On September 5, 2006, Frederic Goldman, the late Ron Goldman s father, filed a petition in the Los Angeles Superior Court before Judge Linda Lefkowitz. Goldman urged the Court to assign and transfer Simpson s right of publicity to partially satisfy Goldman s portion of the unpaid civil judgment. 101 This was California s first consideration of whether the state could forcibly assign a celebrity s right of publicity in satisfaction of a judgment. 102 Goldman argued that the right of publicity was a property and commercial right subject to assignment. 103 In October 2006, the Court denied Goldman s motion for the transfer of Simpson s right of publicity in satisfaction of his outstanding 99 Hock, supra note 97, at 353 (citing Jury Orders Simpson to Pay $25 million, USA TODAY, Feb. 11, 1997, available at see also Tal Ganani, Note, Squeezing the Juice: The Failed Attempt to Acquire O.J. Simpson s Right of Publicity, and Why It Should Have Succeeded, 26 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 165, 177 (citing Rufo v. Simpson, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)). 100 See Hock, supra note 97, at 348 (citing Robin Abcarian & Martin Miller, Simpson to Tell How He Could Have Killed Pair, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 16, 2006 at B1, available at Martin Miller, Meg James & Gina Piccalo Simpson Book, TV Plan Dropped, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 21, 2006, at A1); see also Ganani, supra note 99, at 166 (citing Publisher Dubs O.J. Simpson Chat a Confession ; Victims Families Lash Out, FOXNews.com, Nov. 16, 2006, Ganani, supra note 99, at 167 (citing Notice of Motion and Motion by Plaintiff Frederic Goldman for Order Transferring and Assigning Right of Publicity of Defendant and Judgment Debtor Orenthal James Simpson, Goldman v. Simpson, No. SC (Cal. Super. Ct. W. L.A. Cty. Oct. 17, 2006) [hereinafter Motion for and Assignment of Right of Publicity]. 102 Ganani, supra note 99, at 167 (citing Goldmans Seek Control of O.J. Simpson's Right to Publicity, CNN.com, Sept. 6, 2006, see also Hock, supra note 97, at (discussing novel request for court to forcibly take publicity rights as payment for a judgment (citing Ron Goldman's Dad Asks for Rights to O.J. Simpson's Image to Pay Off Judgment, FOXNews.com, Sept. 5, 2006, Ganani, supra note 99, at (citing Motion for and Assignment of Right of Publicity, supra note 101, at 4-5); Hock, supra note 97, at 373 (citation omitted).
20 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 111 But, as discussed in the following section, the protection provided is still inadequate. After Princess Diana s death, the Press Complaints Commission ( PCC ) revised its code of practice to include regulation of photographers. However, the PCC was established and funded by newspapers so they can regulate itself. 112 The PCC s conflict of interest in regulating media members along with protecting private citizens can result in weak enforcement of the code. 113 B. Intellectual Property Causes of Action Intellectual property law affords celebrities relief via three specific mechanisms: the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 ( CDPA ), 114 the Trade Marks Act, 115 and the common law cause of action for passing off. 1. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 The CDPA 116 is unlikely to provide relief to celebrities who have not secured or are unable to secure copyright protection for their artistic talents. Under the Act, copyright owners are able to prevent others from using or reproducing original artistic works, photographs, drawings or any copyrightable material. 117 A plaintiff must establish British citizenship and ownership of the work that was allegedly reproduced, published, or infringed upon in the United Kingdom in order to pursue a copyright infringement claim. 118 Celebrities are not protected where their artistic talents do not fit within the confines of the definition of a copyrightable work. 119 Talents not protected are a celebrity s ability to delve into the inner workings of a character in a movie; a singer s ability to reach a certain musical pitch; or an athlete s strategy or method of playing a particular sport. As preservation of others freedom. Human Rights Act, 1998, c. 42, sch.1, pt. I, art. 8 (Eng.). 112 Marc P. Misthal, Reigning In the Paparazzi: The Human Rights Act, The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and The Rights of Privacy and Publicity in England, 10 INT L LEGAL PERSP. 287, 307 (1998). 113 See discussion infra Part IV.C Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48 (Eng.) 115 Trade Marks Act, 1994, c. 26 (Eng.). 116 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, c. 48 (Eng.). 117 Id. 118 Id Id. 1.
21 112 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & THE INTERNET [Vol. 1:112 such, the CDPA is unlikely to afford celebrities wide protection over the commercial appropriation of their attributes. 2. Trade Marks Act Celebrities in the U.K. are also unlikely to find success in garnering relief under the Trade Marks Act. 120 The Trade Marks Act provides protection of names, letters, designs, or symbols that distinguish the trademark owner s goods from the goods of a competitor. 121 Celebrities have attempted to trademark names or symbols associated with their names, 122 but courts have been reluctant to afford protection where there is no likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods promoted. 123 Accordingly, celebrities often resort to other causes of action, such as passing off in an attempt to seek relief. 3. Passing Off The common law cause of action for passing off has recently been recognized as a viable cause of action for celebrities in the U.K. 124 Passing off arises primarily when an individual represents that goods belonging to another are his own. 125 In an action for passing off, the plaintiff must prove three things. First, the good will or reputation attached to a product must be distinctive of the plaintiff. Second, a plaintiff must prove that an individual buying the goods could believe that the defendant s products are the plaintiff s products. Third, a plaintiff must prove that he suffers harm as a result of the confusion. 126 Celebrities have only recently been able to seek relief when their reputation is attached to goods or services they did not 120 Trade Marks Act, 1994, c. 26 (Eng.). 121 Id. 1(1). 122 See Lyngstad v. Anabas Prods. Ltd.,  F.S.R. 62 (Ch.); In re Elvis Presley Trade Marks,  13 R.P.C. 543 (Ch.), aff d,  16 R.P.C. 567 (A.C.). 123 In re Elvis Presley Trade Marks,  13 R.P.C. 543 (Ch.), aff d,  16 R.P.C. 567 (A.C.) (holding that a company s use of the name Elvis in the United Kingdom did not preclude registration of Elvis Presley by Elvis Presley Enterprise, Inc., as such was unlikely to cause public confusion). 124 See Irvine v. Talksport Ltd.,  EWHC 367 (Ch.),  2 All E.R See Reddaway v. Banham,  A.C. 199, See Reckitt & Coleman Prods v. Borden, Inc.,  R.P.C. 341,  1 W.L.R. 491 (H.L.) (Eng.) (Ch.).
22 2010] RIGHT OF PUBLICITY 113 personally endorse. 127 In Irving v. Talksport, Ltd., 128 a radio station used an image of Irving, a prominent driver on the racing circuit, in an advertisement for its sports talk program. Irving carried a portable radio in the advertisement, which was meant to generate interest in the station s sports programming. The British High Court of Justice held that Irving was able to recover for the unlicensed appropriation of his goodwill or reputation. 129 The court outlined the two-part test necessary to claim passing off in a false endorsement case. 130 First, a plaintiff must show that at the time of the complaint, he or she had a prominent reputation or goodwill. Second, the defendant s actions must have relayed a false or misleading message that the goods were endorsed by the plaintiff. 131 As the court appropriately recognized, celebrities seek to exploit their personality and image commercially. 132 Therefore, celebrities are entitled to recover when another attempts to falsely portray their endorsement of goods and services. While passing off has the potential to provide celebrities with relief for the exploitation of their reputation or goodwill through the commercial use of their attributes, the relief provided is nominal. 133 For example, Tiger Woods, a well known golfer, has a contract with Buick where he appears in their commercials promoting the purchase of their vehicles. If Honda were to air commercials using Tiger Woods s image, Tiger Woods would have a claim against Honda for passing off. Honda would be liable in this case, because it appropriated Woods s image and the goodwill associated with Woods s golf talent, and then sent the public a false message that he endorsed their vehicles. Honda s misappropriation could damage Woods s goodwill and his contractual relationship with Buick. However, if Woods were to bring a claim for passing off in the 127 See, e.g., Irvine v. Talksport Ltd.,  EWHC 367 (Ch.),  2 All E.R (English court does not award relief to a Celebrity s claim of passing off). 128 Id. 129 Id. at Id. at Id. 132 Id. at See Irvine v. Talksport Ltd.,  EWHC 367 (Ch.),  2 All E.R. 414., (holding that although the defendant radio station spent approximately 11,000 distributing brochures falsely indicating racecar driver as a celebrity endorser of its radio programs, the court only awarded the racecar driver relief of 2000).
ROBERSON v. ROCHESTER FOLDING BOX CO. et al. June 27, 1902.
Fordham Law Review Volume 51 Issue 1 Article 6 1982 Cases and Materials on Remedies Margaret S. Bearn Recommended Citation Margaret S. Bearn, Cases and Materials on Remedies, 51 Fordham L. Rev. 196 (1982).
The Intent of the Law in Waivers: For the Persona or the "Other" Entity?
Do Consumers Have Private Remedies for Violations of the Reporting Requirements Under the Rules of the Consumer Product Safety Act?
LOST RELEASE AND GRANT OF RIGHTS. I/we am/are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in my/our state of domicile (if higher).
RECENT COURT DECISIONS HIGHLIGHT THE TENSION BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND CELEBRITIES' RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PHILIP AHN, ELIZABETH MALECKI, and KATALIN ZAMIAR Plaintiffs, v. MIDWAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, WILLIAMS ELECTRONICS GAMES, INC.
498 F.2d 821 (1974) No United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 6, 1974.
18 th Annual Real Property and Estate Planning Symposia ABA Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Washington, D.C.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.