Re: Rights in real characters

On 8/4/1997, Shelly Warwick <swarwick[_at_]way.com> wrote:
>
> Privacy: Since the speech was public there was no invasion of privacy.
> Also, as previously stated by others, since there was no commerical use,
> there is no improper use of the persona.

There seems to be a serious misconception here of the right of publicity. The use of the image in this fictional movie is clearly :"commercial" and the fact that the footage was that of a public speech does not mitigate that kind of use or otherwise provide a defense. The use was clearly also not parodic. In short, there would seem to be an unexcused violation of the right of publicity. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, as a practical matter, presidents do not sue for this kind of thing and it is unlikely that this president would sue at all.

Sheldon W. Halpern
The Ohio State University College of Law <shalpern[_at_]pop.service.ohio-state.edu> Received on Wed Aug 06 1997 - 02:28:12 GMT