This database is now a Wiki. Click here for the latest content

[-] Home
[-] Literature List
[-] Personality Rights Blog
[-] Workshop minutes

Country listing:

Personality rights in the USA – An Introduction

In the USA, the development of personality rights has differed as between States.  Some influences, however, have been felt throughout the federation.

I.                   The recognition of a right of privacy

The development of a right of privacy can be traced back to an article by Warren and Brandeis in 1890 (4 Harvard Law Review 193 (1890)), where the authors argued in favour of a general privacy law and for recognition of a “right to be left alone”.  

Some 10 years later, New York courts had to decide Roberson v Rochester.  In that case a common law right of privacy was rejected as being too broad.  As a result of this litigation, New York introduced Section 50, 51 into its Civil Law. There, the unauthorised use of the name or picture of a person for commercial advertising or trade was prohibited. The New York Civil Law also gave the victim of such conduct actionable rights. But the seeds for the development of a right of privacy had been sown.  In 1905, the Supreme Court of Georgia recognised a right of privacy as an absolute and natural right in Pavesich v New England Life Insurance. This became a leading case, the principles of which have been followed in many others since.   

Another academic, Prosser, was also influential on the development of privacy torts. In 1960, he argued in favour of four aspects of a privacy tort: 

  • Intrusion into private affairs

  • Disclosure of  private facts of dignitary importance

  • Putting a person into a false light publicly

  • Commercial appropriation of portrait or name

 These torts have found their way into the Restatement (Second) of Torts as §§ 652A-652D (1977) which have in turn been accepted as law in some States.   

Privacy and other interests

As the First Amendment is of utmost importance in the US, public interest and freedom of speech constitute strong counterweights to privacy. The Supreme Court case Time v Hill and the New York cases of Howell, Finger and Messenger illustrate the search for a balance.  

II.                The emergence of commercial interests

Not long after the acceptance of the right of privacy as a means to protect against violation of personality, claimants sought to protect economic interests.  In Edison v Edison Polyform, heard in 1907, the fact that the claimant was famous led to the conclusion that the right of privacy should also protect against loss of an economic nature. But privacy proved to have its limits in the commercial sphere, especially when the claimant was a celebrity figure ready to trade his image or name. In 1941 in O’Brien, the court said that because the claimant was well-known and used to publicity, he could no longer be considered as a private person. This led to voluntary and involuntary uses of a person’s characteristics being treated in the same way so long as they had at one time been licensed. Haelan Laboratories showed that a more coherent action was needed.  In 1953, the right of publicity emerged receiving clear recognition in 1977 by the US Supreme Court in Zacchini.

The attributes of the right of publicity

From mere unauthorised use of a name or portrait, the right of publicity now includes all manner of personal characteristics such as the voice (Bette Midler), distinctive expressions (Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets), likeness and the use of look-alikes (Onassis v Christian Dior)

Case List:

 * The blurred line between privacy and commercial exploitation:           

 Roberson v Rochester Folding Box Company, 1902
 Pavesich v New England Life Ins, 1905
 Edison v Edison Polyform, 1907

 * Privacy aspects and public interest:

Time Inc. v. Hill, 1967

 * The misappropriation doctrine challenging personality rights:

 Uhlaender v Henrichsen, 1970
 Motschenbacher v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 1974

* The recognition of an autonomous right or publicity:

Haelan Laboratories Inc v Topps Chewing gum Inc, 1953
Zacchini v Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co, 1977

 * Is the right of publicity assignable?

Haelan Laboratories Inc v Topps Chewing gum Inc, 1953
Price v Hal Roach Studios, 1975

 * Likeliness and look-alikes:

Onassis v Christian Dior, 1984
Perfect 10 Inc v Talisman, 2000
Winter v DC Comics, 2002

* Voice and distinctive expressions:

Carson v Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, 1983
Midler v Ford Motors, 1988

* Specific issues about celebrity figures:

Edison v Edison Polyform, 1907
O'Brien v Pabst Sales Co, 1941
Pamela J. Howell et al. v New York Post, 1993
Comedy III Productions Inc v Gary Saderup Inc, 2002

*  Specific issues about portrait rights:

Joseph Finger v Omni Publications,1990
Pamela J. Howell et al. v New York Post, 1993
Messenger v Gruner, 2000

* Voice and distinctive expressions:

Bret Michaels v Internet Entertainment Group, 1998, 1983

 

Literature List:

Books

  1. S Barbas, Movie Crazy: Fans, Stars and the Cult of Celebrity (New York, Palgrave, 2001).
  2. J Sax, Playing Darts with a Rembrandt: Public & Private Rights in Cultural Treasures, (Ann Arbor, Uni. of Michigan Press, 1999).
  3. B Cardullo et al. (eds.), Playing to the Camera (New Haven, Yale Uni. Press, 1998).
  4. P D  Marshall, Celebrity and Power: Fame and Contemporary Culture (Minneapolis, Uni. of Minnesota Press, 1997)
  5. C Fombrun, Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image (Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 1996).
  6. J C S Pinckaers, From Privacy toward a New Intellectual Property Right in Persona (Boston, Kluwer Law International, 1996).
  7. S W Halpern, The Law of Defamation, Privacy, Publicity, and Moral right: Cases and Materials on Protection of Personality Interests, (JPM books, 3rd ed., 1995).
  8. J Fowles, Starstruck: Celebrity Performers and the American Public (Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992).
  9. J Gaines, Contested Culture: The Image, the Voice, and the Law, (Chapel Hill, Uni. of North Carolina Press, 1991).
  10. L Gross & J Stuart (eds.), Image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film & Television (New York, Oxford Uni. Press, 1988).
  11. J Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity And Privacy, (West Group, 1987)
  12. R Schickel, Intimate Strangers: The Culture of Celebrity (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1985).

Articles, documents and working papers

1.      P Gelder, “Image is everything: An analysis of the legal protection of the image of sport athletes,” International Sports Law Journal, (2005), Issue1-2, 25-37.

2.      A Popovici, “Personality rights-A civil law concept’, Loyola Law Review, (2004), Vol. 50, Part 2, 349-358.

3.      C P Beall, “The right of publicity: Status under Colorado law” Colorado Lawyer, 2004, Vol. 33, No. 10, 27-40.

4.      J McMillen & R Atkinson, “Artists and athletes: Balancing the First Amendment and the right of publicity in sport celebrity portraits” Journal Of Legal Aspects of Sport, 2004, Vol. 14, Part 2,117-144.

5.      J Tabach-Bank, “Missing the right of publicity boat: How Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Co. threatens to “Sink” the First Amendment” 24(2) Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 247-88, (2004).

6.      M Landau, “Copyright, the First Amendment, and the right of publicity: The expansion of "Transformative Uses"” Computer and Internet Lawyer, 2004, Vol. 21, No. 3, 13-20

7.      E Volokh, “Freedom of speech and the right of publicity” Houston Law Review, 2004, Vol. 40, Part 4, 903-930.

8.      M S Kruse, “Missouri's interfacing of the First Amendment and the right of publicity: Is the "Predominant Purpose" test really that desirable?”
Missouri Law Review, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 3, 799-816.

9.      C Kevorkian, “Reinterpreting jurisprudence: The right of publicity and Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2003, Vol. 37, Part 1, 85-104.

10.  D E Mirell, “Worming around the First Amendment: An overview of recent developments in publicity rights litigation,” Address to the Los Angeles Copyright Society, (1 Oct. 2003).

11.  D E Wanat, “Entertainment Law: An analysis of judicial decision-making in cases where a celebrity's publicity right is in conflict with a user's First Amendment right” Albany Law Review, 2003, Vol. 67, Part 1, 251-278.

12.  J Klink,  “50 years of publicity rights in the United States and the never-ending hassle with intellectual property and personality rights in Europe,” Intellectual Property Quarterly, (2003), Issue 4, 363-387.

13.  M S Lee, “Agents of Chaos: Judicial Confusion in Defining the Right of Publicity—Free Speech Interface,” 23 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 471 (2003).

14.  T Spee, “Law Review Article Guides Missouri High Country in Ruling,” Daily Journal Extra, (22 Sept. 2003), 6.

15.  S A Dymond, “So many entertainers, so little protection: New York, the right of publicity, and the need for reciprocity” New York Law School Law Review, 2003, Vol. 47, Part 2/3, 447-476.

16.  S  McEvoy & W Windom, “A tale of two cases: Right of publicity versus the First Amendment”, Communications and the Law, 2003, Vol. 25, Part 2, 31-46.

17.  S M Moore, “Sex, lies, and videotape; the First Amendment vs. the right of publicity for expressive works,” 25 Ent. Law Rep. (2003).

18.  R K Sherwin, “Celebrity lawyers and the cult of personality,” New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, (2003), Vol. 19, Part 1, 147-156.

19.  B M Rowland, “An athlete's right of publicity” Florida Bar Journal, 2002, Vol. 76, Part 10, 45-50.

20.  G  Smith, “The extent of protection of the individual's personality against commercial use: Toward a new property right,” (2002) 54 S.C. L. Rev. 1

21.  E Olander, “Stop the presses! First Amendment limitation of professional athlete’s publicity rights” (2002) 12 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 885.

22.  M B Jacoby & D L Zimmerman, “Foreclosing on fame: exploring the uncharted boundaries of the right of publicity” 77 N.Y.U. L. Rev., 1322-1368 (2002).

23.  E Reiter, “Personality and patrimony: Comparative perspectives on the right to one's image” (2002) 76 Tul. L. Rev. 673.

24.  J E Rothman, “Copyright preemption and the right of publicity” University Of California Davis Law Review, 2002, Vol. 36, Part 1, 199-266.

25.  A M Hunt, “Everyone wants to be a star: Extensive publicity rights for non celebrities unduly restrict commercial speech,” Comment, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1605 (2001).

26.  D G Baird, “Does Bogart still get scale? Rights of publicity in the digital age,” John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, No. 120 (2d Series), (30 April 2001).

27.  R R Kwall, “Preserving personality and reputational interests of constructed personas through moral rights: A blueprint for the twenty-first century,” University of Illinois Law Review, (2001), Part 1, 151-172.

28.  V de Grandpre, “Understanding the market for celebrity: An economic analysis of the right of publicity” (2001), 12 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J., 73.

29.  J L Carpenter, “Internet publication: The case for an expanded right of publicity for non-celebrities,” 6 Virginial Journal of Law and Technology 3 (2001), <http://www.vjolt.net/vol6/issue1/v6i1a03-Carpenter.html>.

30.  D J Ezer, “Celebrity names as web site addresses: Extending the domain of publicity rights to the Internet,” Comment, 67 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1291 (2000).

31.  K Fisher, “Which path to follow: A comparative perspective on the right of publicity” (2000) 16 Conn. J. Int. I. L., 95.

32.  I J Schiffres, “Invasion of privacy by use of plaintiff’s name or likeness in advertising,” Annotation, 23 A.L.R. 3d 865 (1999).

33.  J Kahn, “Bringing dignity back to light: Publicity rights and the eclipse of the tort of appropriation of identity,”17 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 213 (1999).

34.  C Fernandez, “The right of publicity on the internet” (1998) <http://www.iies.es/bd/publicity/rp1.htm>

35.  R J Labate & J S Jennings, “The developing right of publicity” PerformInk Online, ( 28 March 1998), <http://www.mbc.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/RJL-Developing_Right_of_Publicity.pdf>

36.  F Jay Dougherty, “The right of publicity-towards a comparative and international perspective,” Foreword, 18 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 421, 440–46 (1998).

37.  J Malkan, “Stolen photographs: Personality, publicity, and privacy” (1997) 75 Tex. L. Rev. 779.

38.  S Elliott, “Something's weird in the state of California: How the right of publicity wronged Bettie Page,” Note, 72 Notre Dame L. Rev. 593(1997).

39.  O R Goodenough, “Go fish: Evaluating the Restatement's Formulation of the Law of Publicity,” 47 S.C. L. Rev. 709 (1996).

40.  R C Dreyfuss, “We Are symbols and inhabit symbols, so should we be paying rent? Deconstructing the Lanham Act and rights of publicity,” 20 Colum.-Vla J.L. & Arts, 123, (1996).

41.  S R Barnett, “The right of publicity versus free speech in advertising: Some counter-points to Professor McCarthy,” 18 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 593 (1996).

42.  A  Langvardt, “The troubling implications of a right of publicity ‘Wheel’ spun out of control” (1996) 45 U. Kan. L. Rev. 329.

43.  T Rahimi, “The power to control identity: Limiting a celebrity's right to publicity” (1995) 35 Santa Clara L. Rev. 725.

44.  S Sen, “Fluency of the flesh: Perils of an expanding right of publicity,” (1995) 59 Alb. L. Rev. 739.

45.  J Thomas McCarthy, “The human persona as commercial property: The right of publicity” (1995), 19 Columb-Vla J. L. Arts 129.

46.  K E Spahn, “The right of publicity: A matter of privacy, property or public Domain?” 19 Nova L. Rev. 1013 (1995).

47.  L Stack, “White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s expansion of the right of publicity: Enriching celebrities at the expense of free speech,” (1995), 89 Nw. U. L. Rev., 1189.

48.  F G Houdek, “Researching the right of publicity: A revised and comprehensive bibliography of law related materials,” 16 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 385 (1994).

49.  S Clay, “Starstruck: The overextension of celebrity publicity rights in state and federal courts” (1994), 79 Minn. L. Rev. 485.

50.  W Heberer III, “The overprotection of celebrity: A comment on White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.” (1994) 22 Hofstra L. Rev. 729.

51.  F M Weiler, “The right of publicity gone wrong: A case for privileged appropriation of identity,” Note, 13 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 223 (1994).

52.  M Madow, “Private ownership of public image: Popular culture and publicity rights,” (1993) 81 Calif. L. Rev. 125.

53.  R Coombe, “Authorizing the Celebrity: Publicity rights, postmodern politics, and unauthorized genders,” 10 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 365 (1992).

54.  B Singer, “The right of publicity: Star vehicle or shooting star?”10 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 1, 37-46(1991).

55.  L J Raskind, “The misappropriation doctrine as a competitive norm of intellectual property law,” 75 Minn. L. Rev. 875 (1991).

56.  R C Post, “Rereading Warren and Brandeis: Privacy, property, and appropriation,” 41 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 647, (1991).

57.  G Armstrong, “The reification of celebrity: Persona as property” (1991) 51 La. L. Rev. 443.

58.  P B Edelman, “Free press v. privacy: Haunted by the ghost of Justice Black,” 68 Tex. L. Rev., 1195 (1990).

59.  J Rubenfeld, “The right to privacy,” 102 Harv. L. Rev. 737 (1989).

60.  C L Buchanan, “A comparative analysis of name and likeness rights in the United States and England,” 18 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 301, (1988).

61.  L A Wohl, “The right of publicity and vocal larceny: Sounding off on Sound-alikes,” Note, 57 Fordham L. Rev. 445 (1988).

62.  R T E Coyne, “Toward a modified Fair Use defense in right of publicity cases,” 29 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 781(1988).

63.  T F Haas, “Storehouse of starlight: The First Amendment privilege to use names and likenesses in commercial advertising,” 19 U.C. Davis L. Rev., 539 (1986).

64.  E  R Reilly, “The right of publicity for political figures: Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products,” 46 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1161 (1985).

65.  T F Simon, “Right of publicity reified: Fame as a business asset,” 30 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 699, (1985).

66.  P Samuelson “Reviving Zacchini: Analyzing First Amendment defenses in right of publicity and copyright Cases” (1983), 57 Tulane L Rev 836.

67.  K Rogers, “The right of publicity: Resurgence of legal formalism and judicial disregard of policy issues,” 16 Beverly Hills B. Ass'n J., 65 (1982).

68.  D E Shipley, “Publicity never dies; it just fades away: The right of publicity and federal preemption, 66 Cornell L. Rev. 673, (1981).

69.  P L Felcher & E L Rubin, “The descendibility of the right of publicity: Is there commercial life after death?” 89 Yale L.J. 1125 (1980).

70.  J  M Treece, “Commercial exploitation of names, likenesses, and personal histories,” 51 Tex. L. Rev. 637, (1973).

71.  E J Bloustein, “Privacy as an aspect of human dignity: An answer to Dean Prosser,” 39 N.Y.U. L. Rev., 962 (1964).

72.  W L Prosser, “Privacy” (1960) 48 Cal. L. Rev., 383.

73.  H R Gordon, “Right of property in name, likeness, personality and history,” 55 N.W.U.L. Rev. 553 (1960).

74.  M B Nimmer, “The right of publicity,” 19 Law & Contemp. Probs., 203 (1954).

75.  J Grodin, “The right of publicity: A doctrinal innovation” (1953), 62 Yale L.J. 1123.

76.  S D Warren & L D Brandeis, “The right to privacy,” 4 Harvard Law Review 193 (1890).

 



            

Published by the AHRC Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law
Website design, implementation and programming by Andrés Guadamuz.
All material is copyright of the AHRC Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law and contributors.
Web Statistics powered by MetaTraffic