Re: Rights in real characters

Bob Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> writes:
>
> . . . . does not make the use of the President's image therein a
> "commercial" use, violating the right of publicity. If it did, then
> every newspaper that printed the President's photo would be violating
> the same right, unless they decided to give their papers away for free.

I thought that newspapers were covered under the news analysis/commentary exceptions to the Copyright Act.

> In most of the right of publicity jurisprudence I am familiar with, the
> right is limited to "commercial" uses, which are defined specifically
> as advertising or merchandising. In other words, you can't put the
> president's face in an ad or on a t-shirt or coffee mug without
> violating the right of publicity;

I not sure I see the difference between a coffee mug and a commercial film. Especially since the "Contact" producers have allowed the President's segment to be used in advertising/promotional clips. It may be less likely that a person chooses a film based on a specific image but the effect is still the same.

Jayne Sebby
jsebby[_at_]unlinfo.unl.edu Received on Fri Aug 08 1997 - 15:36:25 GMT