Re: Celebrity GIFs

From: Oliver, Derric <doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 96 10:01:59 PST

Correct, this law changes between states. I can't remember which, but one of California or New York requires that the right of publicity be exploited by the celebrity. If that right is not exploited over the course of X number of years (I can't remember the number of years, either), the right of publicity is lost. This seems to be similar to Trademark law. I'd like to hear the specifics from someone who DOES know the true story.

Thanks.



This is not necessarily the views or opinions of my employer.

Derric Oliver
<doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com>

______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
On 9/23/96, Harold Federow <hfederow[_at_]u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Sep 96, doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com (Oliver, Derric) wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Just an observation--this is a very state dependent question. Some
> states do not recognize any such right.
Received on Mon Sep 23 1996 - 17:15:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:22 GMT