On 02/20/99, Lee Tien <tien[_at_]well.com> wrote:
>
> There was a case involving Joe Montana and the San Jose Merc a few
> years ago. As I recall, the Merc reused sports-news photos of Montana
> for a special supplement commemorating the 49ers, or something along
> those lines. I think it was also right of publicity, but the Merc won.
> How different is that from Woods' case?
Not very different; but there are two important points. First, I think a newspaper or news magazine will always be given somewhat more deference than a Franklin Mint-type place that is selling commemoratives plates, plaques, and art. Admittedly, the Mercury-News WAS selling a commemorative poster, but it was simply a reprint of a page that had actually appeared in the paper.
The other point is a practical one: the Montana case was one of the few right of publicity cases that was actually heard in state court instead of federal court (where they are usually decided, either because of diversity or because they are supplemental to a Lanham Act claim). It is indeed odd to find the state court more protective of the First Amendment than a federal court; but that seems to be the case in California.
Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
<tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu>
Received on Tue Feb 23 1999 - 03:10:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:34 GMT