Court Opinion

ID: 9693587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:51:06.99074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:48.741594
License: Public Domain

DAY, J.
(dissenting): I dissent. Up until the enactment of sec. 895.50, Stats. (1977), this Court has consistently refused to recognize a right of action in Wisconsin based on a common law right of privacy.
In Yoeckel v. Samonig, 272 Wis. 430, 434-435, 75 N.W.2d 925 (1956), this court declined to recognize a right of privacy and cited with approval the holding of Brunson v. Ranks Army Store, 161 Neb. 519, 73 N.W.2d 803, 806 (1955). The Nebraska court said:
*404“Our research develops no Nebraska case holding that this court has in any form or manner adopted the doctrine of the right of privacy, and there is no precedent in this state establishing the doctrine. Nor has the legislature of this state conferred such a right of action by statute. We submit that if such a right is deemed necessary or desirable, such right should be provided for by action of our legislature and not by judicial legislation on the part of our courts. This is especially true in view of the nature of the right under discussion, under which right not even the truth of the allegations is a defense.”
To avoid the effect of Yoeckel, Mr. Hirsch has characterized his cause of action as one based on the tort of appropriation of a person’s name for commercial purposes, rather than the right of privacy. However, the “right of publicity” is but one facet of the right of privacy doctrine; both ideas are rooted in the theory that the individual has a right to control the use of his own name. In the absence.of legislation, this court has refused to recognize such a right.
Concededly, the Wisconsin cases have not squarely dealt with the tort of appropriation of an individual’s name or likeness. However, language in Meier v. Meurer, 8 Wis.2d 24, 98 N.W.2d 411 (1959), suggests that this court has conceptualized the rights of privacy and publicity as twin doctrines. Meier involved an action for libel, in which the plaintiffs brought an action to recover for the commercial use of their name in a sale by the defendants of assets formerly owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that a valuable property right consisting of the name “Meier Bakery” had been irreparably damaged. This court reversed an order overruling a demurrer, stating:
“Plaintiffs allege that defendants had no authority to use the Meier name. Unauthorized public use of another’s name does not give rise to a cause of action for *405libel, and in several cases this court has decided that a cause of action for invasion of a right of privacy does not exist in this state. Judevine v. Benzies-Montanye Fuel & Whse. Co., supra; Yoeckel v. Samonig, 272 Wis. 430, 75 N.W.2d 925 (1956).”
What was implicit in Meier was explicit in Carson v. National Bank Of Commerce Trust & Savings, 501 F.2d 1082 (8th Cir. 1974). In that case a well known entertainer sought damages for a travel agency’s unauthorized use of his name and picture to promote a tour known as “Nebraskan’s Johnny Carson Tour of Las Vegas.” Applying Nebraska law, the 8th Circuit held that there was no right to control the use of one’s own name and image, whether characterized as an action for “misappropriation,” or invasion of privacy. Relying on the same Brunson case cited in Yoeckel, the court said:
“Brunson, argues plaintiff here, sought damages not for his loss of the opportunity to sell his name for commercial purposes, but for the mental suffering he underwent as a result of the revelation of an embarrassing incident, whereas Carson (mindful perhaps of the Brun-son case) has carefully refrained from mentioning ‘privacy’ in his complaint and has argued that he seeks damages for the misappropriation of a ‘valuable property right.’ Nonetheless, the Court believes that whether the right for which plaintiff seeks protection is denominated his right to privacy or his ‘right to publicity,’ as plaintiff has characterized his first cause of action, it stems from Court recognition that an individual has the right to control the use of his own name and image and the publication of information about himself. If that right is conceded, several distinct causes of action may arise from it, depending upon the particular conditions; if one’s pursuit of his own private activities is interfered with (the tort of ‘intrusion’) ; if intimate details of one’s personal life are made public; if publicity places one in a false light in the public eye; and, finally, if commercial use is made of one’s name and image without consent. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383, 389 *406(1960). All these actions stem from the initial recognition of a right to control the use of one’s own name and image, which the Nebraska Supreme Court explicitly-rejected in Brunson. Plaintiff’s characterization of his action as one seeking damages for ‘misappropriation’ cannot serve as a means to escape the rule of the Brun-son case.” Id. at 1084-85.
To similar effect is Maritote v. Desilu Productions, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 721 (W.D. Ill. 1964), aff’d 345 F.2d 418 (7th Cir. 1965). In Maritote, the administratrix of the estate of A1 Capone sued Desilu Productions, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, asserting that the defendants had been unjustly enriched through an alleged appropriation of the name, likeness and personality of Al Capone for use in television broadcasts of “The Untouchables.”
Under Illinois law, the right of privacy did not survive the death of the individual, and as a result, the lawsuit was characterized as an appropriation of the deceased’s property right in his own name. The court commented, however:
“Plaintiffs have attempted to evade the personal nature of an invasion of privacy suit, by attaching to it a new label, that of appropriation of a property right. Yet, despite the label, such an action remains one for invasion of privacy, under Illinois law, and must be subj ect to the restrictions imposed thereon.
“The right sought to be asserted here falls squarely within the right of privacy concepts.” Id. at 723.
In view of the fact that the legislature has now acted in this area, under principles of stare decisis, I would hold that Mr. Hirsch is foreclosed by Yoeckel v. Samonig from maintaining this action.
I would also hold that two simple words like “crazy” and “legs” whether spelled separately or as one word cannot as a matter of law under the facts here be re*407garded as the commercial "trade name” property of Mr. Hirsch. The record shows that other athletes have been so designated. If the name Elroy or Hirsch had been used with crazy and legs, a different case would present itself because it would show that Elroy Hirsch was the person whose name was being used for commercial purposes. A gel for the shaving of women’s legs has no association with football or any of the other athletic activities of Mr. Hirsch. Here again a closer case might be presented if the subject of advertising was football helmets or football shoes but hardly women’s leg shaving cream.
One can recall “Crazy” Guggenheim on television a few years ago or the famous “Legs” Diamond. It would be reaching beyond reason to say either had a monopoly on the words “crazy” or “legs.” This writer finds it hard to see how combining the two words in this context gives Mr. Hirsch a proprietary interest in the words.
Counsel for Mr. Hirsch referred to an athlete called “Bulldog” Turner, but one could hardly claim the word “Bulldog” has become one person’s property. There have been athletes known as “the horse,” others known as “dizzy” and “daffy” but any of those names attached to a shaving cream for women’s legs should not give rise to a cause of action for commercial exploitation of one’s “name.”
I would affirm. I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Connor T. Hansen joins in this dissent.