Re: Advertising violations

On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> I would not count on the fictional persona argument, however. One
> of the principal arguments in the Vanna White case is that the robot
> represented only the ROLE played by Vanna White (her fictional
> persona, if you will), rather than White herself. The court rejected
> that argument without much discussion. Similarly, the Lugosi court
> (California) seemed to accept the argument that any likeness of Lugosi
> as Dracula would violate his right of publicity.

Prof. Ochoa's point bears repeating: The Ninth Circuit is a particularly grim place to find yourself as a defendant in a right of publicity case (at least when applying California law). In addition to the Vanna White robot case (in which Judge Kozinski wrote a scathing dissent), there is the Bette Midler "sound alike" case, and another robot case brought by those titans of entertainment - Norm and Cliff from Cheers. I believe in the plaintiff prevailed (though one or more of those decisions may have been in the posture of a motion to dismiss).

Greg Ikonen
<gikonen[_at_]venlaw.com> Received on Tue Mar 23 1999 - 15:42:49 GMT