The leading online Right of Publicity resource.

Cetaphil Super Bowl LVIII commercial fair use of Taylor Swift?

February 20, 2024 No Comments »
Share this article:

Super Bowl advertising is fertile ground for Right of Publicity licensing. My company more often than not will have a campaign using one of my clients. Inevitably, then, there could also be instances of advertising which wanders into the realm of a Right of Publicity infringement.

Without saying I believe it is or is not an infringement, or whether it was authorized or not, there is no denying who the Cetaphil advertisement of a father and daughter bonding over friendship bracelets and football jerseys was connecting to the surge of attention brought by Taylor Swift dating Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce in the 2023 season. My Right of Publicity class will use this spot for discussion of Right of Publicity analysis.

In the Cetaphil advertising spot, no reference to the Super Bowl or the Kansas City Chiefs is made directly; however, several football jerseys are depicted, one in a red-based color, another in an away-uniform white-based color. They are otherwise unmarked jerseys, but at least arguably are capable of being viewed as Kansas City Chiefs jerseys. The timing of the spot occurs during the “big game,” and perhaps the viewer is expected to arrive with a built-in familiarity of one of the teams in the game and to Taylor Swift and her circumstantial but heavily-publicized connection to the Kansas City Chiefs.

So with respect to Taylor Swift and the Right of Publicity, would it be actionable? Throughout the spot, the father and daughter seem not to be connected as each looks at their phones or have seemingly disparate interests. The numbers on the jerseys in the spot are 89 and 13, both of which need no explanation to Swifties or the Taylor Swift fanbase, as those numbers are immediately recognizable as connected to Swift (arguably even more so when used together). Numerous close-ups of friendship bracelets culminate in both the father and daughter wearing both friendship bracelets, and both wearing football jerseys in the Kansas City Chiefs colors, numbered 89 and 13. The father-daughter disconnect is remedied as the father wears friendship bracelets like his daughter, the daughter wears a jersey like her father, and they both sit down in front of the television presumably to watch the “game.”

Do these references require a built-in awareness of the storylines dominating the 2023 season and the 2024 Super Bowl? To be clear, no NFL or Kansas City Chiefs trademarks are directly depicted, nor is Taylor Swift named or directly portrayed. Do these details render the spot clear of violations? Again, I am not giving an assessment, just raising the question, and from one of the following links, I am not the first to ask the question.

Here is one link to the spot, which posting is captioned “Taylor Swift Cetaphil commercial:” Cetaphil 2024 Super Bowl commercial

Here is a link to one write up that references the dynamics in play, and also considers whether fair use would provide safe harbor. Cetaphil’s Marketing Tactics balance Taylor Swift Imagery and IP Rights

The standard for infringement is identifiability, perhaps qualified by the association being unequivocal (“unequivocal identifiability”). It is probably safe to say that Taylor Swift, and only Taylor Swift, is unequivocally identifiable from the advertisement. Are the interests of fair use served by an advertisement like this being deemed permissible? To be clear, it has not been “deemed permissible” nor to my knowledge has any action been taken against it. It may remain theoretical, but context matters in Right of Publicity analysis. Given the attention on the Travis Kelce-Taylor Swift relationship throughout the 2023 NFL season, culminating in the Kansas City Chiefs reaching Super Bowl LVIII, and Taylor Swift being shown several times in any game she attended, then the context may dictate that further identification of Taylor Swift, the Kansas City Chiefs, or the Super Bowl were unnecessary because the context of the use removed any uncertainty. Should it have been licensed? Should it be fair use?


Cadbury advertisement, “Move over Naomi, there’s a new diva in town,” potential violation of Naomi Campbell’s Right of Publicity?

June 10, 2011 No Comments »
Share this article:

Cadbury is finding itself in a legal and PR mess after use of the line “Move over Naomi, there’s a new diva in town” in advertisements for Cadbury’s Bliss chocolate bar.  Supermodel Naomi Campbell has stated that she will look at “every option available” including the possibility of filing a lawsuit, the Independent UK reports.

This situation is interesting because it does not use an image of Naomi Cambell, or even her full name.  Can use of just a first name trigger a Right of Publicity violation?  It certainly can, if the association to Naomi Campbell is clear.  I use the phrase “unequivocally identifiable” in my Right of Publicity classes, and this situation brings that phrase to task.  Is a casual observer of the Cadbury advertisement going to think of Naomi Cambpell, even without further use of her image or full name?  You be the judge.  I invite you to post your thoughts.

The context of the advertisement is part of the analysis.  One can and must look at the supporting imagery, overtones of the ad, recent news, things the person in question might be known for, and similar elements that advertisers are very adept at incorporating into their creative.  Oftentimes, these added elements are part of the timeliness, or punchline, or effectiveness of the advertisement.  An observer of the advertisement is expected to arrive at the advertisement with these associations already in place.

Here’s an image of the Cadbury advertisement:

 

Here’s a link to more coverage of the story:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/naomi-campbell-cadbury-ad_n_868909.html

Follow me on Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/FaberLaw

http://www.RightofPublicity.com

http://www.LuminaryGroup.com


Recent Posts

In The News

Archives

Feeds