The leading online Right of Publicity resource.

Actress in anti-Muslim film files lawsuit

September 20, 2012 No Comments »
Share this article:

Every so often, developments in the Right of Publicity universe touch on especially serious topics, like the lawsuit filed this week by an actress in the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims (the movie at the center of recent demonstrations and outbreaks of violence in various countries throughout the world).

Cindy Lee Garcia’s lawsuit, filed earlier this week in Los Angeles, alleges invasion of privacy and misappropriation of her likeness, among other claims.  In other words, her lawsuit touches on the very subject matter that is devoted to covering.

Those familiar with Right of Publicity legislation might wonder, “aren’t films usually an exempted category of works under most Right of Publicity statutes?”  Good question, and essentially the same one that my contact at Variety Magazine asked when I was consulted for his coverage of the story.  My answer was that extenuating circumstances should be considered in relation to the statutory language, and that the situation demonstrates why blanket exemptions for entire categories of works might not always be a good idea.  The exemption, so to speak, should not be allowed to swallow the rule.

One might assume that if an actress appears in a movie, she can’t later claim to not know what the movie would be like or how she or the movie would be portrayed.  Garcia’s lawsuit alleges that deception was involved whereby her performance was “…changed grotesquely to make it appear that Ms. Garcia voluntarily performed in a hateful anti-Islamic production.”  Garcia also alleges that her lines were dubbed into Arabic.  She reportedly has received death threats as a result of the film.

I would be curious what Garcia’s contract (if there is one) says about the right of the film makers to edit and revise the film, because that could be relevant to the legal analysis of Garcia’s lawsuit.  Nevertheless, if there was deception and misrepresentation taking place, she might just have a case for violation of her Right of Publicity.  Contracts, as well as statutory exemptions, can occasionally be overridden.

Here’s a link to Ted Johnson’s story for Variety Magazine:

Here is a link to CNN’s story on this topic:

Tiger Woods faces down Om Agro Chemicals in trademark opposition

September 18, 2012 No Comments »
Share this article:

We’ve all heard the often-used boardroom adage that “there are no bad ideas” and I can appreciate the usefulness of this notion when brainstorming and problem-solving.  But I submit the following that, well, some ideas are indeed bad.  The Economic Times has reported that a Mumbai-based metal manufacturer has attempted to register “Tiger Woods” as a trademark.

As one would expect, Tiger Woods’ representatives reportedly have filed an opposition to Om Agro Chemicals’ application.  In Om Agro’s application, it apparently claims that it developed the idea of seeking Tiger Woods as a trademark for its products in early 2010.

Aside from Woods’ extensive collection of registered trademarks, it is noteworthy that the effort to trademark Tiger Woods would be limited not only by Woods’ preexisting portfolio of trademark registrations and common law trademark rights, but also by his Right of Publicity.    In fact, even without his trademark arguments, his Right of Publicity ought to be sufficient to stop any products or advertising from taking place using the name Tiger Woods.  As such, even if Om Agro could have sneaked its trademark application through to registration, there would be little they could do with it in the marketplace.  And frankly, that’s how it should be and serves as a good example of the Right of Publicity in action.

That said, because a company with presumably no right to use Tiger Woods’ name, image, likeness or persona in commerce has applied for a trademark registration based on his name, Woods faces the necessity of paying for his legal team to file trademark oppositions.  Such is the burden of the famous, I suppose:  if a name has value, it must be protected from those who would attempt to take it.

Here’s a link to the story:


Recent Posts

In The News