Tag: Right of Publicity
Skating Over Legal Terminology
Dressing up in spandex and sequins. Strapping on a pair of ice skates. Performing a carefully choreographed routine to the smooth-jazz stylings of Kenny G. Sound embarrassing?
For a professional figure skater, that’s just another day at the office. In fact, the pro-skater would probably object if it were suggested that she had agreed to engage in such a performance, but then pulled a no-show at the last minute. A couple of stunts like that, and suddenly you’re the LiLo of the skating-show world.
Earlier this month, Ukraine-born former Olympian Oksana Baiul sued NBC and a skating-show production company whose events apparently are regularly broadcast by the network, in state court in Manhattan, alleging that her name and likeness were used in promotional campaigns for a pair of recent skate shows, even though she had never officially signed on as a performer for the events.
Reports about Ms. Baiul’s suit by the Associated Press, New York Daily News, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and others described the gist of her allegations, and readers would be forgiven for thinking, after reading these accounts, that Ms. Baiul’s claims primarily involve contract or defamation law.
As it happens, the key doctrine on which her complaint actually relies is a legal concept commonly (and sometimes inaccurately) referred to as “right of publicity.”
Some background:
Do you even remember Ms. Baiul? At the age of 16, she overcame injury during the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer to beat out American sweetheart Nancy Kerrigan for the gold. Her unfortunate hairstyle and outfit choices may have made Tonya Harding look like a fashion icon by comparison, but oh, how she could lutz!
Ms. Baiul’s post-Olympic career has had its ups and downs; in the late 1990s, national media regularly reported on her apparent struggles with alcohol abuse. Still, she continues to perform in skating shows.
According to her lawsuit, in mid-2011 skating-show production company Disson Skating contacted an agent with whom she was affiliated and offered to pay Ms. Baiul to star in two upcoming shows. The first show was to take place in December 2011 in Greenville, S.C., and feature the progressive-rock band Styx (of “Mr. Roboto” fame.) The show with Kenny G was to take place in January 2012 in the saxophonist’s hometown of Seattle. Ms. Baiul claims that although she never signed a contract with the production company – and ultimately turned down the offer – the shows’ organizers launched a print-and-radio marketing campaign that included Ms. Baiul’s name and likeness and suggested that she would be appearing in the shows. Because that didn’t happen, and because the defendants never issued a correcting press release, Ms. Baiul was left looking like a two-time no-show, and suffered irreparable damage to her reputation, her lawsuit contends.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If something disparaging is said about a Z-list celebrity, has any harm been done?
|
Tags lawsuit, NBC, Oksana Baiul, right of privacy, Right of Publicity |
Comments |
Date 02/13/2013 |
RAINN-ing on Charlie Sheen
Thanks to his kooky quotations and unapologetically brazen behavior, Charlie Sheen is winning the culture war despite being fired from Two and a Half Men. After breaking the Guinness World Record for fastest person to reach 1 million followers on Twitter, he’s taking his rambling diatribes on a multi-city tour called “Charlie Sheen LIVE: My Violent Torpedo of Truth/Defeat is Not An Option Show.” (Let’s hope the rest of the tour goes better than the kickoff performance in Detroit). But not everyone is a fan. Many of his detractors believe that his cult of personality encourages the abuse of drugs and women, and one group, UnFollowCharlie, has asked the public to boycott Mr. Sheen’s Twitter and tour as a stand against misogyny. The group started selling products bearing the Unfollow Charlie logo through Zazzle, a website that creates custom products from user-submitted designs, and a storm of publicity followed the announcement that the money raised by the sales of these products were to go to RAINN, the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network.
UnFollowCharlie’s fundraising efforts came to an abrupt halt on March 17 when Zazzle had its merchandise removed for violating the site’s user agreement. At first the group thought that the goods were pulled because the bird on its logo was too similar to the one in Twitter’s logo. It turned out that FEA Merchandising, producers of official Charlie Sheen t-shirts, sent the takedown notice because it believes the Unfollow Charlie shirts infringe on Mr. Sheen’s right of publicity. Zazzle’s notice to UnFollowCharlie stated:
Unfortunately, your product was removed because it featured a design that does not meet Zazzle Acceptable Content Guidelines. Specifically, your product contained content that violates Charlie Sheen’s rights of celebrity/publicity. Charlie Sheen’s name and likeness are protected by rights of celebrity/publicity and may not be used on Zazzle products without permission.
That Mr. Sheen felt a keen proprietary interest in his product is no surprise; one week before the takesown notice was sent he declared “I need to gobble up all these f*ckin’ posers and bootleggers and make them go away. Then we’re gonna deliver the real f*ckin’ t-shirts and mugs and hats.”
When THR Esq. ran this story, Eriq Gardner concluded with a few open-ended questions as to who should prevail in this dispute. LASIS analyzed the situation and came to some conclusions. (more…)
|
Tags |
Comments |
Date 04/07/2011 |
Advertisement or Commercial Exploitation of a U.S. President?
By Ted Wills
The White House has been busy in 2010 requesting the removal of President Obama’s image from advertisements. The NY Times and other news outlets have reported the story in detail, but many have painted the legal justification for these requests as falling in a constitutional gray area, and have suggested that the First Amendment might protect the purveyors of advertisements in question.
While journalists may have given this view credence to provide balance or a hint of drama to their articles, a more specific legal analysis suggests that President Obama would likely be successful in any litigation against the companies that sponsored the ads.
|
Tags Constitutional Law, first amendment, President Obama, Right of Publicity |
Comments |
Date 02/22/2010 |