Re: Tiger Woods Suit

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?
>
> Unfortunately, courts have periodically held that the right of publicity
> prohibits at least the sale, if not the creation, of artwork depicting
> famous people -- notably busts of Martin Luther King.

Right -- its the commercial exploitation of a public figure's public conduct (no right to privacy issue here) that is potentially actionable, not the mere creation or use of an image in an artistic work, without more, which is likely to be protected. There are exceptions, of course, such as where the image itself is newsworthy and the like -- but there are as many different sets of rules there are states (a few less, actually), and therefore its the least common denominator of those rules that controls.

Much depends upon how the work is being used. Particularly when sold only as a limited edition at presumably premium prices without seeking consent -- Woods's attorneys will argue that the principal purpose of the exercise of sale is not information to the public or expression of artistic intent, but mere commercial gain -- and that can be actionable.

Andrew C. Greenberg
<werdna[_at_]gate.net> Received on Sat Feb 27 1999 - 17:46:37 GMT