On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Bob Panzer <bigbusie[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that because politicians are the "ultimate"
> public figures they do not benefit from right of publicity (and
> perhaps privacy) laws that the rest of us enjoy. I suspect that
> this is because our system wants to encourage the greatest extent
> of free speech relating to political activity; and
> commercializations, perhaps somewhat akin to parody, are a"form" of
> free speech. I do not know if there are any statutes on this or
> relevant case law. I would be interested in hearing about it.
My understanding is that politicians have almost the same rights, as far as the right of *publicity* is concerned, as any other person. The Restatement (3rd) of the Law of Unfair Competition, section 47, Comment b does say that candidates for public office cannot prevent merchandising activities that would normally be prohibited by the right of publicity. "A candidate for public office, for example, cannot invoke the right of publicity to prohibit the distribution of posters or buttons bearing the candidate's name or likeness, whether used to signify support or opposition." It says nothing about people already in public office.
There is also some additional comment in that same section on Mark's original question:
"Use of another's identity in a novel, play, or motion picture is also not ordinarily an infringement. The fact that the publisher or other user seeks or is successful in obtaining a commercial advantage from an otherwise permitted use of another's identity does not render the appropriation actionable. However, if the name or likeness is used solely to attract attention to a work that is not related to the identified person, the user may be subject to liability for a use of the other's identity in advertising."
Comment c.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:26 GMT