Re: Rights in real characters

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> Sheldon Halpern <shalpern[_at_]pop.service.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The use was clearly also not parodic.
>
> Haven't seen the movie, but even if it were, parody is not a defense
> if there were a violation of the right of publicity in the first place.
>

To be fair, there is at least substantial disagreement on this point. While White v. Samsung might be read to imply that the 9th Circuit believes parody can never be a defense in a publicity claim, the 10th Circuit took the opposite view in Cardtoons v. MLBPA, 39 USPQ2d 1865 (10th Cir. 1996), finding such a defense to be constitutionally grounded.

See also Harmann & Kelly, 17 Hastings Comm/Ent L.J. 633 (1995).

Mark Lemley
Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu

For information on the Intellectual Property program at UT, see http://www.utexas.edu/law/acadaff/intelprop/

For information on the 1998 Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference, see http://www.cfp.org

For a list of my publications, and how to find them, see http://www.law.utexas.edu/lemley/pubs.htm Received on Fri Aug 08 1997 - 15:44:24 GMT