California Celebrities Rights Act

Last updated

The Celebrities Rights Act or Celebrity Rights Act was passed in California in 1985, which enabled a celebrity's personality rights to survive his or her death. [1] Previously, the 1979 Lugosi v. Universal Pictures decision by the California Supreme Court held that Bela Lugosi's personality rights could not pass to his heirs, as a copyright would have. The court ruled that any rights of publicity, and rights to his image, terminated with Lugosi's death. [2]

Contents

California Civil Code section 3344 [3] is for the publicity rights of living persons, while Civil Code section 3344.1, [4] known as the Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act, grants statutory post mortem rights to the estate of a "deceased personality", where:

In 1999, the period of protection was extended from fifty years after a person's death to seventy years. [9] Similar laws have been enacted by 12 other states in the United States. [10]

Cases

In 1998 Princess Diana's estate sued the Franklin Mint for selling products bearing her likeness. The lawsuit filed May 18, 1998 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles said the Franklin Mint "failed to obtain consent to use Princess Diana's identity and trademark ... and embarked on a campaign to profit from Princess Diana's death." On June 27, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a summary judgment in favor of the Franklin Mint. [11] Franklin Mint countersued Diana's estate's lawyers for "malicious prosecution of trademark"—in January 2011 the law firm settled with a $25 million payment to the former owners of the Franklin Mint. [12]

Shaw Family Archives Ltd. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc. , 486 F.Supp.2d 309 (S.D.N.Y., 2007) ruled on May 7, 2007 that in regard to Marilyn Monroe, because she died before California's Celebrity Rights Act was passed in 1985, and the state of New York does not recognize a right of publicity after the artist's death, her name, image, and voice are now in the public domain in the states of California and New York. By implication, they would also be in the public domain in any state that, at the time of Monroe's death in 1962, did not recognize a right of publicity that survived the artist's death. In response to that court ruling, California passed legislation that created descendible rights of publicity that last 70 years after death, retroactively for any person deceased after January 1, 1938. [13] A similar law has failed in the New York Legislature.[ citation needed ]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

Personality rights, sometimes referred to as the right of publicity, are rights for an individual to control the commercial use of their identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers. They are generally considered as property rights, rather than personal rights, and so the validity of personality rights of publicity may survive the death of the individual to varying degrees, depending on the jurisdiction.

The Franklin Mint is a private mint founded by Joseph Segel in 1964 in Wawa, Pennsylvania. The building is in Middletown Township.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privacy laws of the United States</span>

Privacy laws of the United States deal with several different legal concepts. One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who unlawfully intrudes into their private affairs, discloses their private information, publicizes them in a false light, or appropriates their name for personal gain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">General partnership</span> Basic form of partnership under common law

A general partnership, the basic form of partnership under common law, is in most countries an association of persons or an unincorporated company with the following major features:

In United States law, the term color of law denotes the "mere semblance of legal right," the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law adjusts (colors) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal issues with fan fiction</span>

Fanfiction has encountered problems with intellectual property law due to usage of copyrighted characters without the original creator or copyright owner's consent.

Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 603 P.2d 425, was a decision of the Supreme Court of California with regard to the personality rights of celebrities, particularly addressing whether these rights descended to the celebrities' heirs. The suit was brought by the heirs of Béla Lugosi, his son Bela Jr. and his fifth wife Hope Lugosi, who jointly sued Universal Pictures in 1966 for using his personality rights without the heirs' permission on toys, posters, model kits and the like. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Lugosi heirs, but Universal Studios won the case in an appeal. The court determined that a dead person had no right to their likeness, and any rights that existed did not pass to their heirs.

The law of the Republic of China as applied in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu is based on civil law with its origins in the modern Japanese and German legal systems. The main body of laws are codified into the Six Codes:

A virtual human, virtual persona, or digital clone is the creation or re-creation of a human being in image and voice using computer-generated imagery and sound, that is often indistinguishable from the real actor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Photography and the law</span> Legal status of photography, including intellectual property and privacy laws

The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted by civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.

Bela George Lugosi is an American attorney and the son of actor Béla Lugosi. His legal actions in Lugosi v. Universal Pictures led to the creation of the California Celebrities Rights Act. He is often referred to as Bela Lugosi Jr.

The California Art Preservation Act (CAPA) is a 1979 California law that provides legal protection for artists' moral rights by prohibiting the alteration or destruction of their artwork without their consent. The law has since been amended in part. The law is codified at California Civil Code § 987. The California Art Preservation Act was the first major law to specifically address artists' rights in the United States.

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977), was an important U.S. Supreme Court case concerning rights of publicity. The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the news media from civil liability when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent, and the Constitution does not prevent a state from requiring broadcasters to compensate performers. It was the first time the Supreme Court heard a case on rights of publicity.

Provisions related to Italian copyright law are found in Law no. 633 of 22 April 1941. Certain fundamental provisions are also found in the Italian Civil Code of 1942, Arts. 2575–2583.

<i>Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd</i> Canadian legal case

Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd, 1977 CanLII 1255, 17 OR (2d) 425, 80 DLR (3d) 583, is an appropriation of personality case in Canada, which recognized the right of exclusive right to market one's personality.

Post-mortem privacy is a person's ability to control the dissemination of personal information after death. An individual's reputation and dignity after death is also subject to post-mortem privacy protections. In the US, no federal laws specifically extend post-mortem privacy protection. At the state level, privacy laws pertaining to the deceased vary significantly, but in general do not extend any clear rights of privacy beyond property rights. The relative lack of acknowledgment of post-mortem privacy rights has sparked controversy, as rapid technological advancements have resulted in increased amounts of personal information stored and shared online.

Celebrity privacy refers to the right of celebrities and public figures, largely entertainers, athletes or politicians, to withhold the information they are unwilling to disclose. This term often pertains explicitly to personal information, which includes addresses and family members, among other data for personal identification. Different from the privacy of the general public, 'Celebrity Privacy' is considered as "controlled publicity," challenged by the press and the fans. In addition, Paparazzi make commercial use of their private data.

<i>Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co</i>

Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902) was a pivotal case for establishing the first privacy laws in the United States. The highest court in New York, the New York Court of Appeals, rejected Roberson's claim. Due to this, there was public outrage which led to the swift implementation of one of the first privacy rights in 1903. The New York State Legislature created section 50 and section 51 which continues to exist to this day.

<i>White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.</i> American legal case

White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 ; 989 F.2d 1512, is a 1992 and 1993 case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding a cause of action on the part of TV show personality Vanna White against Samsung for depicting a robot on a Wheel of Fortune–style set in a humorous advertisement.

References

  1. ↑ "Friedemann O'Brien Goldberg & Zarian Names Bela G. Lugosi Of Counsel". Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2008-08-03. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
  2. ↑ "Who Can Inherit Fame?". Time . July 7, 1980. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
  3. ↑ Cal. Civil Code § 3344
  4. ↑ Cal. Civil Code § 3344.1
  5. ↑ California Civil Code § 3344.1(h)
  6. ↑ California Civil Code § 3344.1(a)(1)
  7. ↑ California Civil Code § 3344.1(c)
  8. ↑ California Civil Code § 3344.1(a)(2)
  9. ↑ "California's amended right of publicity statute (California Civil Code § 3344.1)". Lexology. 2008-03-03. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2012-12-02.
  10. ↑ "Letter from Memphis". Studio International. 2003-05-30. Archived from the original on 2012-07-30. Retrieved 2012-12-02.
  11. ↑ "Too famous to trademark: Diana case proves point -- The National Law Journal, Oct. 16 2000, Section C" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-05-19. Retrieved 2023-05-19.
  12. ↑ "Manatt Settles Malicious Prosecution Suit for $25 Million". amlawdaily.typepad.com. Archived from the original on 2022-01-19. Retrieved 2022-06-26.
  13. ↑ "California Adopts New Right of Publicity Law". December 14, 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-12-14.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.