Source: https://www.thelicensingletter.com/licensing-law-101-right-of-publicity-using-celebrities-without-permission/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:24:38+00:00

Document:
In the U.S., can a company use other’s intellectual property in these ways without being under a licensing agreement? The answer: “Yes, sometimes.” While it might seem an anathema for any sensible licensing professional to use a celebrity’s name or likeness in their company’s products or advertising without securing a licensing agreement, there are certain situations where doing so may be unavoidable.
Note that many retailers will require manufacturers or resellers to submit authentication letters or some other proof that their goods are officially licensed in addition to an indemnification that the retailer will not be held liable for any related issues. So even if you’re legally in the clear, you might still not be able to stock the shelves at Amazon or Walmart.
The principal legal issue raised by unauthorized use of a celebrity for commercial purposes involves not federal but state law, specifically, the so-called “right of publicity.” In 38 states, individuals have not just privacy but property rights in the use of their name, likeness, voice and other personal traits for commercial purposes. (See LAWSCAPE to look up the laws of your state). Unlicensed use may violate the right of publicity and subject your company to lawsuits and damages.
But companies have rights, too, including the right to free speech under the First Amendment. In some situations, a company’s First Amendment rights outweigh a celebrity’s right of publicity. Result: They don’t need a license to use the celebrity. Unfortunately, these situations are extraordinarily specific. The important thing is to make sure you understand where the lines are drawn.
The rarest of situations—where you won’t be able to obtain a licensing agreement but your use will nevertheless remain legally unchallenged. In this case, the celebrity has effectively donated their name and likeness to the public.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has no official licensing program but has decided not to enforce her right of publicity—that is, she is happy to allow merchandise bearing her likeness or name to be sold without any restrictions.
Samsung’s use of Olympic athletes’ images and bios for “Genome Project” app enabling users to compare their Facebook profiles to the athletes that wasn’t designed to promote any Samsung products [Spitz v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. (2013)].
Cell phone company’s press release comparing its emergency preparedness program to famous test pilot Chuck Yeager’s breaking the sound barrier was commercial because announcing the plan promoted an enhancement of its wireless service [Yeager v. Cingular Wireless, LLC (2009)].
What Happened: The rapper Pitbull includes the following lyric in his hit song “Give Me Everything Tonight”: “So, I’m tiptoein’, to keep flowin’/I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan.” Ms. Lohan claims that she didn’t authorize the use of her name and sues Pitbull, the record label and its parent company for violating the NY state version of her right of publicity.
Ruling: The U.S. District Court dismisses the case without a trial [Lohan v. Perez (2013)].
The use of the name “is entirely incidental” to the song’s theme.
What Happened: EA Sports introduces a new feature to the 2010 version of its popular “Madden NFL” video game: the option to play “classic” NFL teams from different eras using former players as characters. A group of former players used in the game sues EA for violating their right of publicity. EA claims it doesn’t need a license because the use was “incidental” and asks the court to throw out the case.
Ruling: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit says the use wasn’t incidental [Davis v. Electronic Arts Inc. (2015)].
The use of the retired players for “classic” matchups was a prominent part of EA’s advertising.
Local newspaper’s sale of poster reproductions of front page featuring QB Joe Montana paintings after 1990 Super Bowl because posters report “newsworthy events” [Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. (1995)].
Store’s use of illustration of famous surfer in its catalog is merely “window-dressing to advance the catalog’s surf theme and did not contribute significantly to a matter of public interest” [Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch (2001)].
The use of a person’s identity without a license is allowed where the likeness is so transformed that it becomes an original expression rather than just a reproduction of the celebrity’s likeness. Although better suited for works of art, “transformative use” can also work in commercial settings.
Use of distortion, context, etc., transforms Andy Warhol silkscreens of Marilyn Monroe from mere reproductions into original form of social commentary.
Silkscreen prints of charcoal 3 Stooges drawings for tee-shirts and other retail items are straight commercial reproductions, not original works [Comedy III Productions v. Saderup (2001)].
First Amendment protects comic book publisher’s right to caricature musicians Johnny and Edgar Winter as “villainous half-worm, half-human” characters where drawings aren’t just “conventional depictions” but original expressions designed to lampoon [Winter v. DC Comics (2002)].
iv. The use was primarily for purposes of parody or caricature.
You should, of course, consult with counsel first. Even if you’re confident that you have the legal right to do something, that doesn’t mean someone else will agree—consider if you have the time and money to invest in defending against claims of infringement or even a formal lawsuit.
And last but not least, remember that right of publicity isn’t the only legal risk. Unlicensed use of a celebrity can also result in liability under other laws, including copyright, trademark, and false advertising.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.