Apropos our discussion of "Contact" and violation vel non of President
Clinton's right of publicity, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> ... parody is not a defense if there were a violation of the right
> of publicity in the first place.
Because parody is First Amendment protected comment, it can be a very good defense to a claim of RoP violation. It didn't work in White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), reh'g en banc denied, 989 F.2d 1512, cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993); but it definitely did in Major League Baseball Players Ass'n. v. Cardtoons, 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1996).
Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com>
Received on Thu Aug 07 1997 - 22:12:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:26 GMT