Right of Publicity

Subscribe to Right of Publicity

Innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) have made it easier than ever to replicate a person’s name, image, and likeness (NIL), particularly if that person is a celebrity. AI algorithms require massive amounts of “training data”— videos, images, and soundbites—to create “deepfake” renderings of persona in a way that feels real. The vast amount of training data available for celebrities and public figures make them easy targets. So, how can celebrities protect their NIL from unauthorized AI uses?

The Right of Publicity

The right of publicity is the primary tool for celebrity NIL protection. The right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of an individual’s persona, from appearance and voice to signature catchphrase. Past right of publicity cases provide some context for how this doctrine could be applied to AI-generated works.Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence Wants Your Name, Image and Likeness – Especially If You’re a Celebrity

A recent decision in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals may have tax implications for talent who conducts significant endorsement or brand ambassador activities. Generally, endorsement deals often have two components: (1) endorsement services (e.g., public appearances, social media) and (2) licensing the talent’s name and likeness (e.g., for use on print and digital advertisements). In other relevant tax contexts, income attributable to endorsement services has been treated as services income, while income attributable to licensing of one’s name and likeness has been treated as a royalty. See, e.g., Goosen v. Comm’r, 136 T.C. 547 (2011) (holding that income arising from licensing one’s name and likeness constitutes royalty income for purposes of determining U.S. source income). In the limited context of determining whether income is qualified business income for purposes of IRC 199A, however, income attributable to licensing one’s name and likeness is treated as disqualified service income. But is name and likeness income subject to self-employment tax?
Continue Reading Should Talent Pay Self-Employment Taxes on Income Associated with their “Brand”?

There is more demand for content than ever, and media and entertainment companies face a wide variety of challenges that come along with the increase in production and distribution of content. In-house and outside counsel for media and entertainment companies need a working knowledge of how to deal with insurance issues that arise in their business, including the types of insurance policies that may cover the legal risks they face, and how to navigate the issues that arise when dealing with insurers, such as selection of counsel, allocation between covered and uncovered claims, and who controls the settlement of a claim.
Continue Reading Join Us on July 14 for a Discussion on Entertainment and Media Liability Claims

New York has protected the rights of living persons to control the use of their name and likeness in commerce for over one hundred years. The existing right to privacy gives any person the right to sue for an injunction or damages if their name or likeness is used within New York for advertising or trade purposes without their written consent. See NY CRL § 51. These privacy rights dissipate at death. But starting in May of this year, New York’s new right of publicity statute will grant successors of certain individuals a right of publicity after death. This brings New York’s statute closer to that of California, which has recognized postmortem rights since 1985. The statute also grants new rights concerning the use of deepfakes in sexually manipulated content. More on that below.

The postmortem part of the statute protects only certain individuals who die as New York domiciles and only if they die after the statute goes into effect on May 29, 2021 (i.e., no retroactive effect). The rights that are granted last for 40 years after death and can be transferred by contract, license, trust, will, or another instrument. The bill differentiates between “performers” and “personalities.”Continue Reading New Yorkers Receive Postmortem Rights and Protection Against Digitization of Sexually Manipulated Content in New Right of Publicity Statute

Fortnite: Battle Royale (Fortnite), the highest-earning game in 2019 at $1.8 billion, continues to drive the world of esports.1 Epic Games, its development company, provided $100 million in cash winnings for its summer World Cup, the finals for which took place at Arthur Ashe Stadium in July. The Sunday finale of the event was, according to Epic, the most-watched competitive gaming event (excluding China) of all time. 2 Part of the Fortnite game’s success is due to its creative and memorable celebratory dances known as emotes. Many of these emotes, often inspired by real-world examples from movies, TV series, and social media, enjoy a life beyond the game, as celebrities perform them and athletes use them to celebrate goals and victories.

This high level of success and popularity has inevitably also made the game an inviting target for litigation. In the past eighteen months, several cases have been brought against the company regarding some of the game’s most popular emotes. These cases provide insight for gamers and game developers into potential claims they may face and how to appropriately clear rights and avoid claims.Continue Reading Gaming Emote Litigation: Battle Royale Ensues Over Fortnite Emotes with Plaintiffs Testing Different Causes of Action

On March 4, 2020, Arnold Schwarzenegger (through his company, Oak Productions, Inc.) filed a lawsuit in a California state court against ASAP Group, LLC (doing business as Promobot).  See Oak Prods., Inc. v. ASAP Grp., LLC, No. 20SMCV00347 (Mar. 4, 2020).  According to the complaint, Promobot manufactures customizable service robots that can be made to look like real people, and it has “made Schwarzenegger the unwilling ‘face’ of Promobot” by marketing a robot made in the former governor’s likeness[1] without his permission.

Specifically, Schwarzenegger’s complaint lists four causes of action, based on (1) California Civil Code section 3344; (2) common law right of publicity; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) unfair business practices (i.e., likelihood of confusion regarding whether Schwarzenegger has endorsed Promobot).  And although the case is still in its infancy, it is worth noting that this is not the first time a celebrity has brought right of publicity claims against the use of a robot that resembles her or him.Continue Reading Man vs. Machine: Schwarzenegger Files Right of Publicity Suit Against Robot Builder

The complicated relationship between paparazzi, social media, and celebrities continues in the copyright space. We previously wrote about the cases that had emerged related to Gigi Hadid and Victoria Beckham as well as many other celebrities. Both Hadid and Beckham posted photos taken by paparazzi on their social media accounts and were subsequently sued for copyright infringement. These cases have raised interesting legal arguments at the intersection of copyright enforcement and a celebrity’s right of publicity in their own image, including whether a license could be implied when a celebrity poses for a photograph, or whether that pose creates a co-authorship interest.

Liam Hemsworth is the latest celebrity to make headlines for a related scenario. The photograph at issue in Hemsworth’s case was taken as part of a series of photos depicting him on location for production of a film released earlier this year, Isn’t It Romantic. See ECF No. 1, Splash News and Picture Agency, LLC v. Liam Hemsworth, No. 2:19-cv-10584 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2019). The photo was licensed exclusively to The Daily Mail. On July 15, 2018, the same day that it was posted to The Daily Mail, the photo of Hemsworth also appeared, without its copyright information as produced on The Daily Mail‘s website, on one of Hemsworth’s social media accounts. It also included a “tag” promoting the movie. On June 20, 2019, the photo again appeared on the same social media account, including a feature to encourage viewers to vote for Isn’t It Romantic at the Teen Choice Movie Awards.Continue Reading #CopyrightInfringement: The Sequel

Georgia insurance adjuster and consultant Bruce Fredrics’ filed a lawsuit against a reporter relating to a proposed television exposé on Mr. Fredrics and his business.  In Frederics v. Hon. Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State, et al., Case No. 2019CV317438 (Aug. 2, 2019), Mr. Fredrics sought effectively to stop Harry Samler, the host of the local news’ station’s pro-consumer investigative show “Better Call Harry,” from publishing any news stories about his dealings with a homeowner who claimed he defrauded her, and who had subsequently turned to Mr. Samler to publicize her alleged negative experience.  Notably, Mr. Samler’s investigation dealt not only with Mr. Frederics’ dealings with this homeowner, but also the consumer complaint filed by that homeowner and resulting investigation against Mr. Frederics by a Georgia regulatory agency.

But Mr. Samler’s employer, CBS46, had other plans to protect its lead investigative reporter (and, ostensibly, one of its most popular segments): it filed a motion to intervene and to join a motion to strike filed by Mr. Samler that asked the Georgia Superior Court to make a finding that Mr. Frederics’ lawsuit impermissibly curtailed CBS46’s constitutionally-protected newsgathering activities.  Mr. Frederics opposed both motions, first claiming that, because CBS46 was neither a defendant in his actions nor the target of any of his specific claims, it had no right to intervene in the action.  The Superior Court promptly disposed of that argument, noting that “[t]he media’s right to intervene in legal actions that seek to impede its ability to gather and report the news is well established.”
Continue Reading News at 11: Georgia court finds that television station has First Amendment right to produce investigative reports