Re: Rights in real characters

Apropos the thread about use of President Clinton's speeches in "Contact," Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> Even if speeches the president makes in the course of his official duties
> are in the public domain for copyright purposes, it still seems troubling
> to allow someone to reconstruct them using the same words in different
> oder, and producing something that he did not say.
>
> Several people have suggested that the California right of publicity does
> not apply to commercial uses that are not themselves advertisements for a
> product or service; assuming that is true, is there some other law that
> would apply?

I think the use of the President's face speaking his actual words but in a different context could give rise to an action for "false light privacy invasion" --- a cause of action available in some states for portraying an individual in a context that falsifies the person's actual words, actions, or position. Of course, such an action would not go far, since "Contact" is clearly a work of the imagination, and no reasonable viewer would be likely to believe that the President has "really" taken such a position with regard to life on other planets.

Another possible action might be a Lanham Act 43A action for passing off, insofar as the use of footage of the President might suggest to many viewers that the President had given his permission for such use, and that the giving of such permission constituted an official sponsorship or endorsement of the film, leading to consumer confusion. Again, a stretch.

Cause of action or no, however, I feel strongly that it would have been at least courteous (even though probably not legally required) for the film's producer's to have obtained permission from the White House before using the footage.

Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> Received on Wed Aug 06 1997 - 21:32:41 GMT