Re: Tiger Woods Suit

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, John Noble <jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/99, Patrick Begos <begos[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > The NY Times reported yesterday that Tiger Woods' management
> > company (run by his father), has sued an artist who painted a
> > picture (and then printed copies) of Tiger Woods' victory at
> > Augusta. Woods is claiming trademark infringement and violation
> > of his right to publicity. Apparently his counsel is being very
> > heavy-handed, among other things, demanding the names of 6,000
> > people to whom the prints were sold, and claiming that they will
> > depose each one (at ruinous expense to defendant).
>
> Let's see if I understand. Tiger is going to offend 6000 of his biggest
> fans by serving them subpoenas to appear for deposition, and pay his
> lawyers to fly around to a couple hundred different federal districts
> at say $2,000 per day to ask them if in fact they were confused about
> the source of this use of his image. If I were the painter's lawyer I
> would not only *not* object to turning over the names of the buyers,
> I'd wrap it up with a bow on it. I would attend exactly one of these
> depositions (just for my own amusement). Then, when they were done
> spending half a million dollars, I'd file the motion to dismiss for
> failure to state a claim -- cost to the client $5,000. Tiger's getting
> taken by his lawyers.
>
> > It's an interesting intersection between a celebrity's rights in
> > his name and image, and an artist's first amendment rights to
> > paint whatever he wants. In any event, regardless of the merits,
> > it appears that Woods is engaging in scorched-earth tactics to
> > prevent anyone from painting his picture in the future without
> > his permission.
>
> It's an interesting question, but I gotta think the First Amendment
> still trumps the Lanham Act.

It was my understanding from the NY Times article that the theory behind the lawsuit was a violation of Woods' right of publicity, not trademark. That takes the confusion issue out of the case. I, too, am not sure what the attorneys hope to learn from buyers of the pictures.

     I agree that there are First Amendment issues lurking here, which should provide an interesting case if presented properly. It is interesting to me to watch the expansion of the scope of the right of publicity (as we watch the expansiono of the scope of copyright, trademark, and dilution. I'm not sure whether courts will buy a First Amendment limit to this expansion, but I don't see much stopping the expansion unless there is a cosmic shift in attitudes toward intellectual property.

     Regards,
		Bob Kreiss

*************************************************************
* Robert A. Kreiss                          Ph. 937-229-2256 
* Professor of Law and                                       
* Director, Program in Law and Technology                    
* University of Dayton School of Law                         
* Dayton, OH  454469-2772                                             
  
* For more information about the Program in Law and          
* Technology, please visit our web site at                   
*    http://www.udayton.edu/~lawtech/                               
**************************************************************