Re: Tiger Woods Suit

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> 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 is correct about this point, of course. But as applied, the first poster may have it right as well for the case at point, except perhaps the broad generality of the statement. As understood, this is an image about the celebrity doing what the celebrity does publicly. It's hard to imagine how an interest based upon right to be let alone can be infringed in this matter. Indeed, the image is being misappropriated, but it seems that this is clearly a publicity, not a privacy case.

Andrew C. Greenberg
<werdna[_at_]gate.net> Received on Sat Feb 27 1999 - 17:54:36 GMT