RE: Norm and Cliff

It's not a copyright issue, it's a Right of Publicity issue. The plaintiffs, Wendt and Ratzenberger, don't dispute that Host international cleared all of the copyrights with the company that owns all rights in the Cheers program and its characters. Briefly, what the plaintiffs maintain is that the Host bars' use of two male figures seated at the end of the bar is sufficient to invoke, in consumers' minds, the images not of Cliff and Norm but of the actors who portrayed them and who are identified with those roles. So it's claim that Host has violated Wendt and Ratzenberger's personal rights to control the commercial exploitation of their images, under California's Publicity Rights Act.

Robert C. Cumbow
 Graham & Dunn PC
 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
 Seattle, WA 98101-2390
 206.340.9619
 206.340.9599 fax
 rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
 http://www.grahamdunn.com  

        Big law firm experience
> without the big law firm experience®

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Taber [mailto:ktaber[_at_]patentlawyers.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 9:01 AM To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Norm and Cliff

I recently have heard radio stories and seen articles referring to the dispute between the actors who played Norm and Cliff on the long running Sit-Com Cheers and a company that placed robots of the characters in a bar. The dispute has been framed as a clash between the "right of publicity" and "copyright" in many stories.

Example:
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/10-2-2000/20001002141859130.html

This seemed odd to me at first, but I just figured it was bad reporting. Then I heard an attorney for the copyright holder on a news radio program saying that copyright means nothing if you aren't allowed to use that which is protected.

(I think this link is to the right audio file, don't have speakers at work: http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnps05fm.cfm?SegID=111913 )

This seems contrary to my basic understanding of copyright law. I thought copyright law allowed the creator of a work to prevent others from copying the work. Similar to a landowners right to prevent trespass. I did not think it guaranteed the right to use the work. (Please note that this paragraph is not meant to be a treatise on copyright law : )

I would like to hear differing opinions on the aforementioned attorney's assertion. I hope that I simply heard a sound bite taken out of the context of a well reasoned legal argument. I hope.

Keith E. Taber
Felsman, Bradley, Vaden, Gunter & Dillon, L.L.P. One Riverway, Suite 1100
Houston, Texas 77056-1920
Tel: 713-961-3525
Fax: 713-961-3723
Email: ktaber[_at_]patentlawyers.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other confidentiality protection. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Received on Thu Oct 05 2000 - 17:46:34 GMT