Source: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/891/appropriation
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:18:10+00:00

Document:
Appropriation, also referred to as misappropriation, is the unauthorized use of a person’s name, photograph, likeness, voice, or endorsement, often for financial gain. Although appropriation may involve speech or communication, the First Amendment does not protect its practice.
Some commentators differentiate them, however, on the grounds that the right of publicity applies to individuals (for example, a celebrity) with a proven commercial value to their image or identity, while appropriation pertains to everyone.
Appropriation has its roots in the law of unfair competition and has historically been applied when something that cannot be copyrighted, such as a performance, is used without authorization. The terms are often used interchangeably, however, and the Restatement (Second) of Torts (sec. 652C, comment (b) (1977)) includes only a single action for “appropriation of name or likeness,” which includes commercial and noncommercial purposes.
The concept of a right of publicity arose at the start of the twentieth century.
New York, for example, adopted the claim by statute in 1905 after the state’s highest court refused to recognize it in Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (N.Y. 1902).
The Georgia Supreme Court recognized the claim in Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co. (Ga. 1905).
The first court decision to use the term right of publicity was Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. (2d Cir. 1953). Professor Melville B. Nimmer promoted the concept the following year in a seminal article.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the claim in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977), which involved the unauthorized broadcasting of the entire “human cannonball” act.
The Second Restatement of Torts, published the year of the Zacchini decision, states that “[o]ne who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy” (sec. 652C; see also Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, sec. 46 (1995): “[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 is subject to liability for [monetary and injunctive] relief ”).
The action is now recognized as a common law tort by most states, although some jurisdictions recognize it only for prominent individuals. Several jurisdictions, notably California and New York, have adopted the cause of action by statute. In a few states, the cause of action survives the death of the individual.
voice, Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 1988).
a race car driver’s automobile, Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (9th Cir. 1974).
unique clothing, as in Cheatham v. Paisano Publ’ns., Inc. (W.D. Ky. 1995).
Plaintiffs must, however, show that their persona has some commercial value. Courts have rejected claims from noncelebrities whose personas have minimal value, as in Vassiliades v. Garfinckel’s, Brooks Bros. (D.C. App. 1985).
Appropriation claims are limited where the unauthorized use has First Amendment value (for example, newsworthy material, entertainment, or parody).
In Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001), for example, a federal appeals court held that the actor Dustin Hoffman could not recover for use of his image as the movie character Tootsie in a noncommercial speech context without showing actual malice.
In Doe v.TCI Cablevision (Mo. 2003), a hockey player failed to recover for publication of a comic book with a character with a similar name.
In Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. (Fla. 2005), the court found that publications, including motion pictures, that do not directly promote a product or service, are not actionable under right of publicity statutes.
Namath v. Sports Illustrated (N.Y. App. 1975) set out that the limitations also apply to advertising undertaken in connection with a use protected by the First Amendment.
Federal copyright law preempts state appropriation law when the work falls within the subject matter of the Copyright Act of 1976 and plaintiffs’ claims assert rights equivalent to those protected by copyright.
Thus, for example, appropriation claims are preempted in cases involving usage of a copyrighted work that incidentally, but necessarily, includes the identity of the complainant.
Compare Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Association (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied (1987) with Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. (9th Cir. 2006), Brown v. Ames (5th Cir. 2000), and Downing v. Abercrombie and Fitch (9th Cir. 2001).
Gibson, Floyd A., and Rachel M. Healey, “The Right of Publicity Comes of Age.” American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal 23 (1995): 361–399.
Goldman, Lee. “Elvis Is Alive, But He Shouldn’t Be: The Right of Publicity Revisited.” Brigham Young University Law Review 1992 (1992): 597–628.
Halpern, Sheldon W. “The Right of Publicity: Commercial Exploitation of the Associative Value of Personality.” Vanderbilt Law Review 29 (1986): 1199–1255.
Hunt, Alicia M. “Everyone Wants to Be a Star: Extensive Publicity Rights for Noncelebrities Unduly Restrict Commercial Speech.” Northwestern University Law Review 96 (Summer 2001): 1605–1659.
“Invasion of Privacy by Use of Plaintiff’s Name or Likeness in Advertising.” Annotation in American Law Reports 3d. Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Cooperative, 1969.
“Invasion of Privacy by Use of Plaintiff’s Name or Likeness for Nonadvertising Purposes.”Annotation in American Law Reports 3d. Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Cooperative, 1970.
Kahn, Jonathan. “Bringing Dignity Back to Light: Publicity Rights and the Eclipse of the Tort of Appropriation of Identity.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 17 (1999): 213–272.
Marr, Jeremy T. “Constitutional Restraints on State Right of Publicity Laws.” Boston College Law Review 44 (May 2003): 863–900.
McCarthy, J.Thomas. The Rights of Publicity and Privacy. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.:West Publishing, 2006.
Nimmer, Melville B. “The Right of Publicity.” Law and Contemporary Problems 19 (1954): 203–223.
Post, Robert C. “Rereading Warren and Brandeis: Privacy, Property, and Appropriation.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 41 (1991): 647–677.
Webner, W. Mack, and Leigh Ann Lindquist. “Transformation: The Bright Line Between Commercial Publicity Rights and the First Amendment.” Akron Law Review 37 (2004): 171–201.

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