Katie Wright Morrone

Subscribe to Katie Wright Morrone's Posts

Katie Wright Morrone is a civil litigator with vast experience representing clients in complex and high-profile matters in all stages of litigation and dispute resolution. Katie is regularly engaged in prominent, highly publicized matters, while also handling extremely confidential matters that are routinely resolved without ever getting to litigation. She is particularly sensitive to, and adept at managing, the competing interests clients must balance during or in anticipation of litigation.

Contact:Read more about Katie Wright Morrone

Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 683, which makes a significant addition to Civil Code § 3344, California’s Right of Publicity statute. With the amendment, § 3344 now expressly authorizes injunctive relief, which strengthens individuals’ ability to protect their name, image, voice, and likeness from unauthorized use.

Previously, under the prior version of § 3344, a person whose name, image, or likeness was used on merchandise products and in advertising without prior consent could recover statutory or actual damages, any profits attributable to the use, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. Now, the new law clarifies that those monetary remedies are not exclusive, and a plaintiff may also seek temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527. Furthermore, if a court grants a TRO, the defendant must “remove, recall, or otherwise cease” the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness within two business days after the order is served, unless the court’s order states otherwise. Although courts already had the power to issue injunctive relief under general civil procedure when irreparable harm could be shown, there was no explicit statutory right associated with right of publicity claims and no time deadlines for TRO compliance by defendants. SB 683 makes the remedial process more concrete, giving right of publicity plaintiffs a quicker route to stop the misuse of their name, image, or likeness, rather than being at risk of ongoing irreparable harm and waiting for a final judgment.Continue Reading California’s Updated Right of Publicity Statute Provides Increased Protection and Expedited Relief

Introduction

As recent high-profile litigation, government investigations, and large-scale data-security incidents have shown, organizations are often thrust into crisis mode, requiring rapid responses and close collaboration with third parties, such as public relations consultants, crisis management teams, and forensic accountants and investigators, in order to address the crisis holistically. While these third-party partners are vital in steering an organization through a difficult period, it is imperative to take steps to protect communications with these external partners and safeguard the confidentiality of sensitive and even privileged information.

Generally, the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications requesting or receiving legal advice between an attorney and their client. The confidential nature of these communications is important, and the privilege can be jeopardized if third parties are included. However, there are important exceptions to the general rule. First, the “common interest” (or “joint defense”) doctrine extends the attorney-client privilege to communications between attorneys and third parties with a shared legal interest (such as co-counsel in an active lawsuit), but it requires active collaboration on a common legal strategy or issue, not just business strategies with incidental legal concerns. Second, privilege can also extend to third-party consultants (such as private investigators, accountants, public relations professionals, etc.), as long as their involvement is essential to aiding the understanding between legal counsel and the client.Continue Reading Communicating in a Crisis: Tips for Protecting Communications When It Matters Most

On Thursday, October 12, a bipartisan group of senators—Chris Coons (D-Del.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)—released a Discussion Draft of the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (dubbed the “NO FAKES”) Act that would protect the voice, image, or visual likeness of all individuals from unauthorized AI-generated digital replicas, also referred to as “deepfakes.” This draft bill, while focusing on protections required by the advancement of AI, would establish the first federal right of publicity—the right to protect and control the use of one’s voice, image, and visual likeness. The NO FAKES Act could have widespread impacts on the entertainment and media industries, among others.

Generative AI has opened new worlds of creative opportunities, but with these creative innovations also comes the ability to exploit another’s voice, image, or visual likeness by creating nearly indistinguishable digital replicas. This has caused great concern among musicians, celebrities, actors, and politicians regarding viral AI-created deepfakes circulating on social media and the Internet more broadly. To date, advancements in AI technology used to create digital replicas have outpaced the current legal framework governing unauthorized use. Although there are existing laws that may be used to combat digital replicas, these laws either vary from state to state, creating a patchwork of differing protections based on where one is located, or do not directly address the harms caused by producing and distributing unauthorized digital replicas.Continue Reading AI Deepfake Bill: Senators Contemplate the First Federal Right of Publicity