|
More Background on Washington's Amended Right of Publicity Statute
2008-05-01 05:30:00 For those attending tomorrow’s discussion on Washington’s amended right of publicity statute, I thought I’d add some more background (STL post about the gathering here). In particular, here’s a cheat sheet on the amendment I cribbed from the the House Bill Report’s summary of the amendment:”When ApplicableThe provisions of the bill apply to all causes of action commenced on or after June 11, 1998, regardless of when the cause of action arose.“The provisions of this bill apply to all individuals and personalities, living and deceased, regardless of place of domicile or place of domicile at time of death.”Determination of RightsPersonality rights shall be deemed to have existed before June 11, 1998, for purposes of determining who is entitled to the rights recognized under this chapter.”Transferability- of RightsAn individual or personality, or any subsequent owner of that individual or personality’s person...
KCBA Members to Discuss Amendments to Right of Publicity Statute
2008-04-24 05:54:00 Still wondering about the new amendments to Washington’s right of publicity statute? You don’t have to be alone. On May 1, the King County Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Section will host a brown-bag lunch program on “Emerging Issues in Right of Publicity Law.” Panelists Bob Cumbow, Mel Simburg, David Green, and I will throw in our two cents and hopefully get a good discussion going. (For background, see STL posts on the amended statute here and here.) Here’s the teaser the IP Section sent out: “Washington and California have recently amended their right of publicity laws in reaction to important rulings last year involving the publicity rights of Jimi Hendrix and Marilyn Monroe. New York has considered and expressly rejected similar legislation, leaving that state (the domicile of both Hendrix and Monroe at the times of their deaths) as one that does not recognize descendible rights of publicity. Where does this leav...
Washington Mimics California's Response to Marilyn Monroe Publicity Decisio
2008-04-09 06:17:00 Speaking of rights of publicity (see April 6 post here), the New York Times yesterday ran a piece on Marilyn Monroe’s right of publicity, or lack thereof. Similar to the Western District’s and Ninth Circuit’s decisions involving the Estate of Jimi Hendrix, the Central District of California found Ms. Monroe either was a resident of New York or California at the time she died. (In Mr. Hendrix’s case, the Western District and Ninth Circuit found he was a resident of New York.) Either way, the court found, Ms. Monroe’s right of publicity did not descend to her heirs because the statutes in those states did not recognize that rights of publicity survived a- person’s death.In response, the California legislature amended its statute to recognize the descendability of such a right. Sound familiar? This is similar to what the Washington legislature did last month in response to ...
Amended Right of Publicity Statute Could Have Remarkable Impact on Litigati
2008-04-07 06:59:00 As stated in my previous post, last month our legislature amended Washington’s right of publicity statute, RCW 63.60.010, et seq. Effective June 12, 2008, the amendment clarifi-es that the right of publicity in Washington continues after a person’s death, regardless of where the person died, and regardless of whether the jurisdiction where the person died recognized such a right at the time of their death. Assuming personal jurisdiction is satisfied, it also seems to give any person anywhere (whether the person is living or dead, or ever set foot in Washington) a cause of action in Washington for violating his or her right of publicity. The amendment, Substitute House Bill 2727, passed the House 94-0 and the Senate 46-0. It was signed by Governor Christine Gregoire on March 19. The amended RCW 63.60.010 provides: Every individual or personality ((, as the case may be)) has a property right in the use of his or her name, voice, signature, photograp...
No, Right of Publicity Statutes Prevent You from Using Britney's Face
2008-04-04 05:13:00 In the wake of American Apparel’s billboards featuring Woody Allen, and Mr. Allen’s lawsuit in response thereto, Mainstreet.com asks, “Can You Use Britney’s Face To Promote Your Bake Sale?” The short answer is no, not without her permission. The piece cites me as saying statutory and common law rights of publicity tend to protect celebrities and ordinary folks alike from the “un-consented use of someone?s name, voice, signature, and likeness and, it doesn?t only protect celebrities.” ?Celebrities usually deal with these issues the most because their images are everywhere but the law protects all people.? The reporter asked an interesting question that didn’t make it into print: how can celebrities protect themselves from having their right of publicity violated? I thought that was a darn good question. Here’s my response: the celebrity should (1) establish a strong licensing program that he or she ...
Ninth Circuit Affirms Jimi Hendrix Right of Publicity Decision
2007-06-21 03:17:00 On June 18, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Western District of Washington’s grant of partial summary judgment in Experienc-e Hendrix LLC v. The James Marshall Hendrix Foundation, finding that father Al Hendrix had no right of publicity to assign to the plaintiffs/appellants because no posthumous right of publicity existed in New York at the time of Mr. Hendrix’s death. In its short opinion, filed only 15 days after hearing oral argument, the Ninth Circuit found:“Experience Hendrix, LLC and Authentic Hendrix, LLC (collectively ‘Experience’) claim they own the exclusive rights to publicize Jimi Hendrix’s personality under the Washington Personality Rights Act (“WPRA”), Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.030. Applying Washington conflict of law rules, we first determine there is an actual conflict between Washington and New York law because the WPRA recognizes a posthumous right of personality, while New York did no...
Ninth Circuit Hears Appeal of Jimi Hendrix Right of Publicity Case
2007-06-08 08:10:00 On June 5, the Ninth Circuit heard the appeal filed by Experience Hendrix, LLC, and Authentic Hendrix, LLC, over who controls deceased rock musician Jimi Hendrix’s publicity- rights, The Seattle Times reported today. The principal order on appeal is whether Western District of Washington Judge Thomas Zilly erred in 2005 when he found that the issue should be decided under New York law. Judge Zilly found that at the time of Mr. Hendrix’s death in 1970, New York had a limited right of publicity and did not recognize claims made by celebrities’ heirs based on that right. Therefore, he found the sole heir to the Hendrix Estate had no publicity right to assign to the plaintiffs in the case.STL discussed the order here, and a recent lawsuit over the use of Mr. Hendrix’s name and likeness used in connection with a new line of vodka here. STL will report back when the Ninth Circuit renders its decision. The district co...
Why Didn't Experience Hendrix Claim a Right of Publicity Violation?
2007-03-09 20:18:02 When Experience Hendrix and Authentic Hendrix this week sued the makers of HENDRIX ELECTRIC vodka, why didn’t they assert a claim for violating the deceased musician’s right of publicity? The reason probably lies in a 2005 order from the Western District in a suit brought against a foundation run by Jimi Hendrix’s brother concluding that no such right could be assigned to those companies.That case, Experience Hendrix, LLC, et al. v. The James Marshall Hendrix Foundation, et al., No. C03-3462 (W.D. Wash.), involved the same plaintiffs as in the HENDRIX ELECTRIC vodka case that STL discussed yesterday. Plaintiffs in that case claimed Al Hendrix, Jimi Hendrix’s father and the sole heir to the Jimi Hendrix estate, assigned his rights to the plaintiffs before he died in 2002. The defendant foundation was a nonprofit run by Leon Hendrix, Jimi’s brother, whose mission was to help disadvantaged childre... |
|
 |
|
 |
