Re: OJ Simpson

6 replies
148 lines, 5209 bytes

On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Leo Smith <barter[_at_]ntplx.net> wrote:
>
> To satisfy all or part of the recent civil judgement against Simpson,
> could the court all of Simpson's Rights to Publicity, including the
> rights to his image and likeness, to the plaintiffs, where the
> plaintiffs would become licensors for Simpson's image and likeness?

[1]
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:02 -0800
Message-Id: <330364B2.46A5[_at_]bmn.net>
From: "Steven J. Timmer" <stimmer[_at_]bmn.net> Subject: Re: OJ Simpson

I don't know, but to the entire list, I beg that you make this thread short. sjt

-- 
Steven J. Timmer  <stimmer[_at_]bmn.net>
Furber Timmer Zahn, PLLP, 2100 Metropolitan Centre
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2474 USA
v (612)338-3965  f (612)330-0959


[0]
MODERATOR'S NOTE:  I concur with Mr. Timmer.  I had serious reservations 
about posting the original query in the first place, but as Mr. Smith 
framed the question in the context of intellectual property it seemed 
appropriate.  However, let's make sure that any replies to this question 
are also framed in the context of copyright and intellectual property.

People on this list are (by and large) very good at staying on topic, but
when discourse breaks down on a list the conversation can go south real 
fast.  I'd like to avoid that.

To this end, I am posting the next followup question.  However, I 
reiterate that this list is not an appropriate forum for the discussion 
of criminal law matters or more generally the American judicial system.
Those conversation topics are way out of bounds.

If you feel compelled to respond to the next item, do so directly to the 
individual and off the list.

Thanks.

   Craig A. Summerhill, CNI.ORG Postmaster/Manager o' Lists
   Coalition for Networked Information
   21 Dupont Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C.   20036
   Internet: listmgr[_at_]cni.org (Postmaster)


[2]
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:46:38 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199702131346.AA25874[_at_]isildur.law.muni.cz>
From: "T.L.J.S." <skala[_at_]law.muni.cz>
Subject: Re: OJ Simpson

Hallo!

Could anybody explain to me, why is it possible for american system of 
law, to say 'not guilty' in the penalty court, and to say 'guilty' in 
the civil proceeding? I am a czech lawyer, but I am not very familiar 
with american law.

TIA
Tomas Skala
<skala[_at_]law.muni.cz>


[3]
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500af27e10d950a@[205.214.160.117]>
From: bmb[_at_]bmb.com (Bruce Bertram)
Subject: Re: OJ Simpson

Don't know if it could, but I doubt that would satisfy the judgment,
notwithstanding the Plaintiff's experts' testimony to the contrary.

They ought to make the experts' fees contingent on OJ actually selling
autographs.

Actually, the court wouldn't need to do that, since the Plaintiff's could
levy on all his income subject to whatever exclusions the law would allow.
And, since there are exclusions, I doubt the court could assign all his
rights to the Plaintiffs.

--
Bruce M. Bertram     bmb@bmb.com   http://www.bmb.com/~bmb   finger for
Patent Attorney      408-739-9062  fax:408-739-9413          public key
646 Hyde Park Drive  Ploesti: Abramovici/Abramovich/Valderer/Wilder
Sunnyvale, CA 94087  Kalinkavich: Paperny/o/i Lahishin: Perlow/Parlof/v


[4]
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:53:36 +0000
Message-Id: <s302c8a4.024[_at_]srgpe.com>
From: Jamie Powers <Jamie[_at_]srgpe.com>
Subject: Re: OJ Simpson

OJ's publicity revenue is as accessible as any other cash stream.  Now, 
getting him to work, or finding it, might be the issue.  Intellectual 
property generated cash flows are no less subject to attachment and 
garnishment by creditors than any other income flow.  The creativity 
lies in the lawyer/collection consultant efforts.

Jamie Powers
<jamie[_at_]srgpe.com>


[5]
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:24:00 PST
Message-Id: <33035CE4[_at_]mssmtp.perkinscoie.com>
From: "Cumbow,Robert-SEA" <CUMBR[_at_]perkinscoie.com>
Subject: Re: OJ Simpson

I don't think the court could (or would) do this sua sponte; but if the 
plaintiffs were to seek a lien on the Simpson RoP, as a way of securing 
their interest in the judgment, I don't see why it shouldn't be seriously 
considered.  Intriguing idea.

Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com>


[6]
Date:          Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:59:57 EST5EDT
Message-Id: <8956515E32[_at_]jd.lawsch.uga.edu>
From: "Paul Heald" <HEALD[_at_]JD.LAWSCH.UGA.EDU>
Subject:       Re: OJ Simpson

    This is a wonderful question which is not addressed anywhere in 
the case law that I know of.  O.J.'s publicity rights would be 
classified as a "general intangible" under the U.C.C.  The Goldmans 
would have to foreclose on O.J.'s interest in order obtain the 
rights.  Case law does suggest that one cannot foreclose on a 
trademark apart from the goodwill that underlies it.  A trademark, 
along with attendant good will (the trademarked name of a cookie, 
plus its secret recipe and special equipment to make it) can be 
transferred together in bankruptcy proceedings.  The analogy of 
trademarks to publicity rights, however, is rather tenuous.  My guess 
is that the First Amendment or the Right to Privacy would stand in the 
way of a foreclosure of someone's right to publicity.

    Paul Heald
    <heald[_at_]jd.lawsch.uga.edu>