Personality rights

Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to privacy, or to keep one's image and likeness from being exploited without permission or contractual compensation, and the right to publicity use of one's identity, which is similar to the use of a trademark. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. United States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right.

Contents

1 Publicity rights in common law jurisdictions 1.1 Personality rights in the United States 2 Personality rights in civil law 2.1 Personality rights in France 2.2 Personality rights in Germany 2.3 Personality rights in Quebec 2.4 Personality rights in the People's Republic of China 3 External links

Publicity rights in common law jurisdictions

Personality rights have developed out of common law concepts of property, trespass and intentional tort. Thus personality rights are, generally speaking, judge-made law, though there are jurisdictions where some aspects of personality rights are statutory. In some jurisdictions, publicity rights and privacy rights are not clearly distinguished, and the term publicity right is generally used. In a publicity rights case the issue to decide is whether a significant section of the public would be misled into believing (incorrectly) that a commercial arrangement had been concluded between a plaintiff and a defendant under which the plaintiff agreed to the advertising involving the image or reputation of a famous person. The actionable misrepresentation requires a suggestion that the plaintiff has endorsed or licensed the defendant's products, or somehow can exercise control over those products. This is done by way of the tort of passing off.

The meaning of the law is best illustrated by principal cases on the subject.

The Henderson case [1969] RPC 218 was a decision of the High Court of New South Wales (both the first instance and appellate jurisdiction). The plaintiffs were ballroom dancers and they sued the defendant in passing off alleging it wrongfully published their photograph on the cover of a gramophone record entitled "Strictly for Dancing: Vol. 1". An injunction was granted on the ground that the use suggested the plaintiffs recommended or approved of the defendant's goods, or had some connection with the goods.

The Koala Dundee case (1988) 12 IPR 508 was a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant was a script writer and actor whose fame came from the film "Crocodile Dundee". The respondents ran two small shops which sold clothing and other items of an Australian nature. The applicant sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from using the name "Dundee" in association with a composite image "the koala image". The applicant advanced a case in passing off alleging such use was calculated to induce the public to believe the goods sold were associated with the film or the character portrayed by the applicant in it. The court granted the relief holding that the inventor of a famous fictional character having certain visual or other traits may prevent other using his character to sell goods and may assign the rights to use that character. This "extended action of passing off" protects against the wrongful appropriation of a reputation, or wrongful association of goods with an image belonging to the applicant.

In the Pacific Dunlop case (1989) 14 IPR 398, the Federal Court of Australia affirmed a decision which upheld an action in passing off. The plaintiff sued the defendants for a television advertisement which was easily recognizable as being a parody of a scene from the plaintiff's film "Crocodile Dundee". The Federal Court said the test was whether a significant section would be misled into believing that a commercial arrangement had been concluded between the defendants and the plaintiff under which the plaintiff agreed to the advertising.

England has followed this Australian development of the law. In the Mirage Studios case [1991] FSR 145, Browne-Wilkinson, V.C., after referring to the Australian cases of Children's Television Workshop v. Woolworths (NSW) Ltd. [1981] RPC 187 and Fido Dido Inc. v. Venture Stores (Retailers) 16 IPR 365, said the law as developed in Australia is sound. There is no reason why a remedy in passing off should not cover a case where the public is misled in a relevant way as to a feature or quality of the goods sold when an action is brought by the people with whom the public associate that feature or quality. An interim injunction was granted. The first plaintiff was the owner of the copyright in the drawings of fictitious humanoid characters known as "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and part of their business was to license the reproduction of these characters on goods sold by others. The first defendant made drawings of humanoid turtles characters similar in appearance to the first plaintiff's, utilizing the concept of turtles rather than the actual drawings of Turtles.

In Hong Kong, the main case on this point is the ongoing dispute between Cantopop singer/actor Andy Lau and Hang Seng Bank over the allegedly unauthorised use of Lau's image on credit cards.

Only in Jamaica in a 2002 case involving the estate of Bob Marley has it been found anywhere in a common law jurisprudence that a personality right may be transferred by disposition.

Personality rights in the United States

In the United States, rights of publicity are generally enforced through state law. An increasing number of states have statutes that directly recognize a right of publicity; other states recognize it as a matter of common (judge-made) law; and California, unusually, has both statutory and common-law strains of authority protecting slightly different forms of the right. Protections under federal law, to the extent they overlap state law, are generally characterized under the unfair competition provisons of the Lanham Act. Unlike other common law jurisdictions, where personality rights (publicity and privacy) are extinguished with the death of an individual, personality rights in the United States may be a chattel, which are capable of being conveyed by testamentary disposition, if state law so provides. A recent example is John Dillinger's rights of publicity, as seen in Ken Phillips, Mark Phillips and Dillinger’s, Inc. v. Jeffrey G Scalf, a 2003 Indiana Court of Appeals case. The operators of Dillinger’s restaurant are alleged to have violated the right of publicity of Jeffrey G. Scalf, the great-nephew of the 1930s gangster and bank robber John Dillinger, in using without authorization Dillinger’s name, image, and likeness in connection with the restaurant. In March 2003, eight members of the cast of “The Sopranos” alleged that electronics retailer Best Buy used their images in newspaper ads without permission. In September 2002, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman sued luxury goods company Sephora for allegedly using a picture of them without permission in a brochure promoting perfumes.

In the July 2003 case of Tiger Woods v. Jireh Publishing, however, a painting of the famous golfer Tiger Woods and others is protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment and treads neither on golfer's trademarks or publicity rights. Similarly in the July 2003 case of Johnny and Edgar Winter v. DC Comics, a depiction of blues music duo the Winter brothers in a comic book as worms called the Autumn Brothers obtained First Amendment protection from publicity rights suit. The 6 May 2005 Toney v. L'Oreal and Wella opinion clarified the distinction between the purview of copyright versus the nature of publicity rights.

These few examples illustrate that litigation on rights of publicity in the United States is very active, rapidly changing this area of the law.

Personality rights in civil law

In contrast with common law jurisdictions most civil law jurisdictions have specific civil code provisions that protect an individual's image, personal data and other generally private information. Exceptions have been carved out of these general, broad privacy rights when dealing with news and public figures. Thus, while it may violate someone's privacy to speak about his medical condition, if he were the President of France, one can speak about his public life and even a famous person such as Princess Caroline of Monaco is entitled to live her private life without the interference of paparazzi with telescoping lenses.

Unlike most common law jurisdiction the personality rights in civil law are generally inheritable, thus one can make a claim against someone who invades the privacy of a deceased relative if the memory of their character is besmirched by such publication.

Personality rights in France

In France personality rights are protected under article 9 of the French civil code. While publicly known facts and images of public figures are not generally protected, use of someone's image or personal history has been held actionable under French law. The most famous case in recent history is perhaps the publication of the book on François Mitterrand called Le Grand Secret in which Mitterrand's doctor published a book that not only revealed private facts about Mr. Mitterrand's life, but also revealed medical confidences protected by doctor-patient privilege.

Personality rights in Germany

In Germany personality rights are protected under the German civil code. The concepts of an "absolute person of contemporary history" which allow the depiction of individuals who are part history but still gives them some protection of their rights of privacy outside the public sphere.

A succinct statement of the German law can be found in the following judicial statement from the Marlene Dietrich case BGH 1 ZR 49/97 (1 December 1999), Translated by Raymond Youngs (Copyright: Professor Basil Markesinis, ‘Always on the Same Path’ and ‘Essays on Foreign Law and Comparative Methodology’, Hart Publishing 2001, reproduced here as fair use of a legal decision)(1) (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/cases/german/bundes/bundes_1dec1999.html):

Sec. II; para. 1. The general right of personality has been recognised in the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof since 1954 as a basic right constitutionally guaranteed by Arts 1 and 2 of the Basic Law and at the same time as an "other right" protected in civil law under § 823 (1) of the BGB (constant case law since BGHZ 13, 334, 338 - readers' letters). It guarantees as against all the world the protection of human dignity and the right to free development of the personality. Special forms of manifestation of the general right of personality are the right to one's own picture (§§ 22 ff. of the KUG) and the right to one's name (§ 12 of the BGB). They guarantee protection of the personality for the sphere regulated by them (reference omitted).

Personality rights in Quebec

There are certain provisions on rights in the new Civil Code of Quebec that enshrines the right to privacy as an attribute of personality. This right is set forth Article 3.

Every person is the holder of personality rights, such as the right to life, the right to the inviolability and integrity of his person, and the right to the respect of his name, reputation and privacy. These rights are inalienable.

The chapter in the new Code dealing with respect of reputation and privacy defines the invasion of privacy in article 36:

The following acts, in particular, may be considered as invasions of the privacy of a person:

(1) entering or taking anything in his dwelling;

(2) intentionally intercepting or using his private communications;

(3) appropriating or using his image or voice while he is in private premises;

(4) keeping his private life under observation by any means;

(5) using his name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public;

(6) using his correspondence, manuscripts or other personal documents.

Personality rights in the People's Republic of China

In the People's Republic of China, rights of personality are established by statute.

External links

• Legal resource for personality rights cases in the US (http://www.entlawdigest.com)
• Privacy and Personality, Politicians and Stars (http://www.legalpractitioner.co.uk/article001a.htm) by Rohan Massey and Kathrin Tauber, UK/Germany comparative analysis of privacy and personality rights
• Case of Princess Caroline of Monaco (1995) (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/german-cases/cases_bundes.shtml?19dec1995) German Federal Supreme Court (English translation)
• Privacy rights cases under French law (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/french-cases/cassation/tort-law/index.shtml?tort_03) (English translation)
• Privacy/personality rights under German law (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/german-cases/tort-law/index.shtml?tort_13) (English translation)
• Personality rights (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/copothr.html) US Library of Congress