The leading online Right of Publicity resource.

New content and updates to

August 28, 2013 No Comments »
Share this article:

Significant updates and added content has been completed to the website!  Here’s a road map to the new materials:

Under notable cases, check out:

Hart v. EA ruling / 2013
James Brown v. Corbis ruling / 2008
Keller v. EA, NCAA ruling / 2013
Jim Brown v. EA ruling / 2013
Major Taylor summary judgment ruling / 2010
Dillinger v. EA ruling / 2011
Einstein (HUJ) v. GM / 2012

Under Statutes, in addition the recent posting of the new 2012 Indiana Right of Publicity statute, also see the section at the bottom captioned “Draft Statutes,” specifically:

New Hampshire draft / 2012
New York draft / 2013
North Carolina draft / 2009
Massachusetts draft / 2011

Last, under Articles, be sure to read the article by Jason Larsen (“So Who Owns the Rights…”), from the Sports & Entertainment Law Section of the North Carolina Bar Association’s publication, The Front Row (posted with permission), as well as my article (“Lessons Learned…”) in that same publication on North Carolina’s recent legislative efforts on the Right of Publicity front.

Good article on the very real dangers of counterfeits and IP infringements

August 21, 2013 No Comments »
Share this article:

It’s too easy to conclude “buying this knock-off doesn’t hurt anyone.”  Follow the $.

That’s not exactly the focus of the article on the following link, but that popular sentiment and the serious dangers stemming from counterfeit goods go hand in hand.


Two new video game rulings from the Ninth Circuit, Jim Brown v. EA and Keller v. EA

August 9, 2013 No Comments »
Share this article:

Two more rulings involving video games came down last week, both from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The July 31, 2013 ruling in Jim Brown v. Electronic Arts determined that Jim Brown’s inclusion in the Madden NFL video game was not an infringement of the Lanham Act §43(a).  The court used the now famously misapplied Rogers test to determine that video games rise to the same level as literary works and thus are entitled to equal First Amendment protection. Once committed to the wrong test, the Court held that under the Rogers test Jim Brown’s likeness was artistically relevant to the game, also noting that there were no facts showing that his inclusion misled consumers about his involvement with the game.

The July 31, 2013 Brown ruling is only in relation to the Lanham Act claim.  The true nature of Jim Brown’s lawsuit is primarily of a Right of Publicity nature (though the Rogers test would have been the wrong test to apply even if the ruling had been on a Right of Publicity claim).  The Court says in a footnote:  “We emphasize that this appeal relates only to Brown’s Lanham Act claim. Were the state causes of action before us, our analysis may be different and a different outcome may obtain.”

This point is reinforced by a ruling in another case on the same day, by the same judge, on similar facts but different claims. Specifically, consider the July 31, 2013 ruling by in Sam Keller v. EA and NCAA, No. 10-15387,   Here, the Right of Publicity was the claim being considered and the Court distinguished the claims from those in the Jim Brown case.  The Court applied the transformative use test, providing a better fit in most Right of Publicity situations than the Rogers test, which was created for application to titles.  The ruling was in favor of Plaintiff Sam Keller of course because the objective was to recreate Keller as accurately as possible–the antithesis of a transformative use.

Perhaps we have not seen the last of Jim Brown’s claim.

UK ruling in favor of Rihanna against Topshop’s unlicensed shirts featuring her image

August 1, 2013 No Comments »
Share this article:

As previously noted on, singer Rihanna has been engaged in litigation in the UK against apparel company Topshop for selling shirts prominently featuring her image and officially labeled the “Rihanna Tank.”

The article on this link goes to some length discussing whether the UK recognizes “image rights” or whether this shirts rises to the level of passing off or false endorsement.  The reason for this distinction, in part, is related to the legal standards in the UK for these kinds of cases.  The recent ruling found Topshop guilty of passing off.

Rihanna is suing for $5 million as this article reports.  It sounds like while this ruling is in her favor, damages have not yet been assessed.  My prediction:  settlement is imminent.  While settlement is not guaranteed, my experience is that the gamble and expense of pressing on in ligation becomes less and less attractive to a defendant, especially after significant rulings are secured in favor of the plaintiff.

It’s always interesting to observe the debate over whether a personality should or should not have a right to take action in response to such unauthorized products.  It’s hard to imagine a scenario where a product like this, from a company like Topshop, should be permissible without permission of and compensation to the featured personality. I’m glad the UK court seems to agree.

Maybe the UK should look more closely at passing a Right of Publicity or “image rights” law.  The notion of “passing off” has worked for Rihanna in this instance, but passing off is not as well-tuned and form-fitting as the Right of Publicity for cases of this nature.

The objective of cashing in on Rihanna’s value is apparent and manifest in the product itself.  Is there a “greater good” that would be served by allowing a company to appropriate the hard-earned and valuable rights and interests of a personality?

Here’s the link to the Guardian’s coverage:


Recent Posts

In The News