The right of publicity is an offshoot of state privacy law that gives a person the right to limit the public use of her name, likeness, or identity for commercial purposes. A limited version of this right makes sense. For example, you should be able to prevent a company from running an advertisement that falsely claims that you endorse its products. But the right of publicity has expanded well beyond its original boundaries. Today, it potentially covers just about any speech that “evokes” a person’s identity. Celebrities have brought right of publicity cases againstmovies,songs,magazine features, andcomputer games.
Right of publicity cases raise important freedom of expression issues. When celebrities claim that a TV show or some other work violates their right of publicity, the cases effectively ask whether celebrities should have a veto right over creative works that depict them. Courts havestruggled to develop a coherent test for how the First Amendment should apply in these cases.
EFF has filed amicus briefs in support ofTV studios,Internet platforms,computer game publishers, in lawsuits where the right of publicity has clashed with the First Amendment. We will continue our work in this area to ensure that right of publicity claims are limited by robust free speech protection.
Protect digital privacy and free expression. EFF's public interest legal work, activism, and software development preserve fundamental rights.
The threats to online expression and innovation keep coming. One that’s flown under the radar is a misguided effort to convince the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to allow claims based on the “right of publicity,” (i.e., the right to control the commercial exploitation of your persona) because some people...
In what now appears to be anannual ritual, a bad right of publicity law is being rushed through at the end of the legislative session in New York.Assembly Bill 8155-B (and its counterpart Senate Bill 5857-B) would dramatically expand New York’s right of publicity, making it...
In a big win for free speech, the California Court of Appeal has rejected Olivia de Havilland’s right of publicity and false light claims against FX. The court’s ruling [PDF] explains that the First Amendment protects creative works about celebrities whether the work in question is fact, fiction, or...
A huge range of expressive works—including books, documentaries, televisions shows, and songs—depict real people. Should celebrities have a veto right over speech that happens to be about them? A case currently before the California Court of Appeal raises this question. In this case, actorOlivia de Havilland has sued...
