Title: Everyone Wants to Be a Star: Extensive Publicity Rights for Noncelebrities Unduly Restrict Commercial Speech
Abstract: INTRODUCTION From Elvis Presley, to Marilyn Monroe, to Vanna White, to Dustin Hoffman, to Norm from the television show Cheers, the famous and talked-about right of publicity cases involve famous and talked-about people.1 And just as the famous do not like to have their pictures or names used by the media or in commercials without permission, neither do the not so famous. Contrary to conventional wisdom,2 there are dozens, if not hundreds, of cases involving noncelebrities that raise important issues for right of publicity jurisprudence.3 Courts have split on the issue of whether noncelebrities should be able to recover under the right of publicity.4 Part of the dilemma is that there are two torts that protect against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of an individual's identity: (1) infringement upon the right of publicity, and (2) invasion of privacy by misappropriation.5 The actions banned by the two torts are identical; both prohibit the unauthorized commercial use of identity.6 Historically, the right to prohibit the unauthorized commercial use of identity developed first under the rubric of privacy law, which focused on the indignity and mental trauma incurred when one's identity was widely disseminated in an unpermitted commercial use.7 When celebrities began to claim invasion of privacy by misappropriation, however, many courts rejected the claim that the unauthorized commercial use of the celebrity's identity was an invasion of privacy since the plaintiff, by virtue of his fame, was already well known.8 Those courts established the right of publicity to protect the commercial value of celebrities' identities, rather than their privacy interest.9 Thus, the right of publicity originated as a celebrity's right. As a result, the differences between the two torts are found in the justifications for the torts, as well as in the types of damages awarded. 10 The right of publicity is considered a property right that protects the commercial value of one's identity, while the misappropriation tort, under the prevailing view, is intended to shelter one's privacy.11 The key difference under this framework is in the type of damages awarded.12 In a right of publicity case, one may recover damages that are measured by the commercial value of his identity, such as what the fair market value the advertiser would have had to pay to use that person's identity in a commercial.13 In contrast, in a misappropriation case the award is based on mental distress damages for an invasion of personal privacy.14 In other words, the right of publicity vindicates monetary and commercial interests, while misappropriation protects tangible interests in dignity and integrity of the self.15 Based upon those conceptions of the right of publicity and of misappropriation, courts have disagreed on whether the right of publicity should extend to noncelebrities.16 The majority view is that the right of publicity should extend to everyone, and the less famous the plaintiff, the lower the commercial damages.17 The minority view, in contrast, is that the right of publicity is a celebrity's right, and noncelebrities should not be able to recover unless they can demonstrate significant commercial value in identity.18 This debate creates serious issues for the right of publicity, especially since there have been calls for a federal statute.19 Currently, the right of publicity is recognized in a slight majority of states through a patchwork quilt of statutes and common law. States differ on whether the right is transferable or descendible, and on which remedies are appropriate.2' Depending on the state, remedies in a right of publicity case may include a preliminary injunction, an injunction, restitution, pecuniary damages, nonpecuniary damages, punitive damages, and attorney's costs and fees.22 To combat inconsistent state laws, practitioners and academics have advocated the enactment of a federal right of publicity statute 23 or a uniform state statute. …
Publication Year: 2001
Publication Date: 2001-07-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 2
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot