Re: Tiger Woods Suit

On Wed, Feb 24, 1999, Derric Oliver <doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com> wrote:
>
> i've a question on a side note. are we discussing the right of
> privacy v. 1st amendment, or the right of publicity v. 1st amendment?
> i thought that public figures such as tiger woods in essence 'trade in'
> their right of privacy for the commercial right of publicity. is this
> correct (that an individual can't have both rights)? it's either one
> or the other isn't it?

That's a popular misconception that I have heard before.

There is absolutely nothing to it.

The two rights protect entirely different things, and everyone (not just celebrities) has both.

Privacy protects the right to be left alone, and to withhold from public view certain facts about oneself.

Publicity protects the right to control the commercial exploitation of one's name, image, likeness, or a unique personal attribute. You may be thinking of the First Amendment "public figure" doctrine, which says that someone who has specifically placed himself in the public arena (such as by running for office) or who has been placed there by his participation in a newsworthy event has a lower right to privacy (i.e., bears a greater burden of proof in a lawsuit for defamation or privacy or publicity violation). This is not the same thing as saying you give up all privacy rights in order to claim a publicity right.

Bob Cumbow
cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com
206-583-8566 Received on Thu Feb 25 1999 - 17:16:02 GMT