I’ve seen some commentary on Mel Gibson’s issuance of a letter to the person behind a Chilean honey branded “Miel Gibson.” Here’s a link to more coverage of the story: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-15/mel-gibson-threatens-to-sue-chilean-honey-maker-over-image-use/12562438
To date, the developments consist of a letter being issued. No lawsuit has been filed. The letter seems to indicate a willingness for the Chilean business person to continue to some extent, but requests his image be removed. Reportedly, after the recipient shared the letter online, her social media grew “exponentially.”
There’s no question that the product name and packaging ties to Mel Gibson. For those who don’t like the contents of or even issuance of the letter, I would ask “what would you advise be done?”
The lawsuit filed by Jason Mraz against MillerCoors, filed December 4, 2019 illustrates various important points and takeaways. View the complaint here: Jason Mraz v. MillerCoors complaint
Reportedly, MillerCoors was a sponsor of the 2019 BeachLife Festival in California where Jason Mraz performed. His performance of course included one of his hit songs, I’m Yours. The complaint alleges that MillerCoors posted an advertisement on Instagram for Coors. The advertisement includes a clip of Mraz performing the song, the Coors logo, display of a can of Coors Light, the phrase “presented by Coors Light,” and in the comments, the added statement “Kicking off summer with the World’s Most Refreshing Beer at the BeachLife Festival.”
While a complaint is not the same as a ruling, at least two of the important takeaways from this case are:
- Social media is advertising.
- Sponsors do not acquire broad rights to third-party intellectual property simply by serving as a sponsor.
Both of these issues come up with some regularity in the business of representing a rights owner and the right of publicity. Claiming that a social media post is somehow different from advertising on the basis that it is a fluid, user-controlled environment, or that serving as a sponsor entitles the sponsor to utilize the rights of anyone other than the party they are in contract with as a sponsor, both can lead to serious problems.
Not that it would happen, but I can imagine providing the scenario in the following link as a law school exam: Larry Bird mural
It does not appear headed towards legal action, but hypothetically, how could this go? On the copyright front, is it a fair use? A derivative work? Does adding tattoos that Bird obviously does not have change the copyright analysis?
On the Right of Publicity front, or perhaps on the privacy front, what issues exist? Is it a commercial use? Is it protected by statute? Are there issues involved here that sway the analysis in one direction or the other?
Actress Tara Reid apparently has filed a lawsuit seeking $100 million relating to merchandising of the Sharknado film franchise. Reportedly at issue are product categories such as branded beer and slot machines with her likeness on them, which according to her contract require her separate approval. From a distance, this looks like a contract dispute more than a Right of Publicity case, though certainly the Right of Publicity is implicated by the issues at hand. If her likeness is on the product, one hopes that the transformative test would not be twisted and stretched to attempt an argument that the image on the product is meant to be the character from the film, not the actress herself, that her likeness is transformed. But it wouldn’t be the first time a carefully tailored test gets twisted down the line.
Here is Forbes coverage of the lawsuit: https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2018/12/07/tara-reid-sues-sharknado-producers-for-100m/#26b5b9672c46
Beyonce suit against Feyonce knockoffs illustrates need for Right of Publicity distinct from trademark
A Judge recently denied Beyoncé’s request for injunctive relief against a Texas company selling a range of products using “Feyonce.”
Apparently, the Feyonce pun is based on the proximity to the word fiancé. The Judge’s ruling, in summary, is that there was not a sufficient showing of potential confusion among customers that Feyonce was infringing Beyoncé’s trademark rights.
Thus, the need for Right of Publicity as a distinct form of intellectual property, that trademark does not adequately address, is illustrated yet again.
Here’s a link to more information on the ruling and the case: Beyonce Feyonce Lawsuit
Interesting Bloomberg article dated 2/1/17 covering the dispute over the valuation of Michael Jackson’s estate. “The IRS claims Jackson’s should have been valued at $434 million. The estate claims that it was worth a mere $2,105.” Sounds like a case for a Right of Publicity valuation expert. Here’s a link to the Bloomberg article: Bloomberg: Michael Jackson estate valuation
The Right of Publicity was part of 60 Minutes’ season premier episode on Sunday, September 27, 2009, in a segment captioned “A Living For The Dead” which, in updated segments, included notation to Luminary Group and the celebrity clients it represents (Luminary Group was founded by rightofpublicity.com’s Jonathan Faber). I’ve been contacted concerning inaccuracies that the story conveyed. Mostly missing from the story was the idea that representing deceased personalities, in conjunction with the heirs of those personalities, involves an effort to protect and further the legacy of that person, and in many cases the causes which were important to him or her. It isn’t just about money, as the angle of the story seemed to emphasize. There were a few missed opportunities to enlighten the public of the importance of the right of publicity and the work that at least some put into representing departed legends. Here is a link to the CBS story: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5345034n