Re: Rights in real characters

On 8/7/97, Joseph Pietro Riolo <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
>
> I am wondering... Is there any fine print at the end of the movie
> that disclaims anything regarding the use of Clinton's "voice" or
> does the list of credits (again at the end of the movie) mention
> anything about having the permission from President Clinton or
> whatever there is at the end of the movie?
>
> I am not a moviegoer but I have noticed that 99.9% of the moviegoers
> left right after the last scene and before the start of the scrolling
> credits and other fine prints. So, I am curious if anyone who
> watched "Contact" stayed to the end of the movie and if the
> scrolling credits and fine prints say anything about Clinton.

I didn't stay for the end credits, either. Because the White House mildly protested, however, I am sure there was no consent. The use of Clinton's doctored image and voice did not portray him in a bad light at all, but the White House expressed concern about the precedent; afraid of what such practices might ultimately lead to. Despite my belief that there was no violation of any law, I agree with the White House that it is not a very good idea, especially in the case of a currently sitting president. Forrest Gump, made by the same guy who did Contact, used the same techniques to portray JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, but of course the were not sitting presidents at the time. Although what was done in Forrest Gump is less troublesome, the fact that they were no longer sitting presidents might increase the likelihood of a violation of the right of publicity. And the right of publicity is the only privacy tort that survives the subject's death.  

John R. Allison
Graduate School of Business
University of Texas at Austin
512-471-9435
<allisonj[_at_]mail.utexas.edu> Received on Fri Aug 08 1997 - 14:32:28 GMT