Re[2]: Celebrity GIFs

From: Oliver, Derric <doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 96 09:16:34 PST

> Andrew Friedman wrote:

>> 
>> what action could Cindy Crawford take if a photograph of her is 
>> digitally altered or combined with a nude photograph of another 
>> women so that it appears to be Cindy's nude body.  I imagine 
>> rights of privacy and or publicity are implicated and wonder if 
>> the online service would be liable in any way

>
> Since CC has already posed nude, it is hard to imagine a right of
> privacy violation. If the use were not commercial, there could be
> no right of publicity claim. But this is an intriguing question
> irrespective of whether the person whose face is used is a celebrity
> or not. Depending on what body it is grafted onto, and what that
> body is doing, there might be a cause of action for defamation. Can
> a purely visual image, without words, be defamatory if it purports
> to show an identifiable person doing something that she in fact has
> not done?

Whether or not Cindy Crawford ever appeared nude previously has nothing to do with the issue or possible cause of action involved here. No public figure or celebrity has any right to privacy. This right is afforded to private citizens and is simply the right to 'be left alone'. Public figures are instead awarded the property right of publicity. In this case, Cindy Crawford could bring the cause of action misappropriation of name and likeness under the right of publicity.

To support: Namath v. Sports Illustrated, 371 N.Y.S.2d.10 (App.Div. 1975) Namath's initial complaint was thrown out by the court because Namath's lawyer brought cause of action under the right of privacy...ERR!!!

He should have brought misappropriation under the right of publicity.

---

This is not legal advice, nor is it necessarily the views or opinions of my employer.

Derric Oliver
<doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com> Received on Wed Sep 18 1996 - 16:33:33 GMT