Re: Right of Publicity: was RE: Photographs of homes

In my brief rumination on the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame case, I commented that "this sounds less like trademark law than like a Right of Publicity for buildings."

Robert Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> replied:
>
> Is there such a thing as "Right of Publicity" that is guaranteed by
> statute? Is this a right to control the publicity of an object? If
> it were, it would seem to be an infringement on freedom of speech. It
> can't be the right to publicize an object, for who would throw away
> an opportunity for free publicity? It must be the right to mine the
> publicity of an object or institution.
>
> In this regard I'm trying to figure out how such a "Right of Publicity"
> may be considered in the light of longstanding artistic tradition.
> Can public monuments be granted Rights of Publicity? ...

That is, indeed, the question I wanted to raise by my admittedly waggish comment. It is not even settled law in all 50 states that there is a Right of Publicity for PEOPLE. It seems to me that the R&RHF's claims, though stated in Trademark Law terms, seek protection broader than that afforded by Trademark Law. It was my own idea to describe the tenor of their claim as a "Right of Publicity for buildings." I spoke metaphorically. But R&RHF appears to have enjoyed at least some success in establishing such a right, whatever one may want to call it.

Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> Received on Fri Feb 07 1997 - 22:41:35 GMT