Personality-Rights

PersonalityRights*ByPoorviChothani,Esq.andVidhiAgarwalIntroductionApersonalityrightisabourgeoisorcolloquialtermusedinreferencetoaRightofPublicity.TheRightofPublicitycanbedefinedsimplyastherightofanindividualtocommandandcontroltheuseofhisorhername,image,likenessorotherunequivocalaspectsofhisorherdistinctiveness.Itisgenerallyacknowledgedasapropertyrightandnotasapersonalright.ThisarticleexaminestheRightofPublicity(oranalogousrightsbyacontradistinctivename).Personalityrightsgenerallyconsistoftwotypesofrights:therighttopublicity,ortokeepone'srepresentationandlikenessfrombeingcommerciallyexploitedwithoutpermissionorcontractualcompensation,whichissimilartotheuseofatrademark;andtherighttoprivacy,ortherighttobeleftaloneandnothaveone'scharismaepitomizedcarteblanche.CountrySpecificInformationAustraliaTheHendersoncase[1969]RPC218wasaconclusionoftheHighCourtofNewSouthWales.Theplaintiffswereballroomdancersandtheysuedtheaccusedwitha“passingoff”actionallegingthattheaccusedwrongfullypublishedtheirphotographonthecoverofagramophonerecordentitledStrictlyforDancing:Vol.1.Adecreewasgrantedonthegroundthattheusesuggestedtheplaintiffs‟recommendedorapprovedoftheappellant'sgoods,orhadsomeconnectionwiththegoods.IntheKoalaDundeecase(1988)12IPR508,theFederalCourtofAustraliaaddressedtheissueofpersonalityrights.InthiscasebroughttocourtbeascriptwriterandactorwhosefamecamefromthefilmCrocodileDundeetherespondentsrantwosmallshopswhichsoldclothingandotheritemsofanAustraliannature.TheappellantsoughttorestraintheshopownerfromusingthenameDundeeinassociationwithacompositecounterpartthekoalaimage.Theappellantadvancedacaseof“passingoff”allegingsuchusewascalculatedtoinducethecommunitytobelievethegoodssoldwereassociatedwiththefilmortheindividualityportrayedinthefilmbytheappellant.Thecourtgrantedthereliefholdingthattheinventorofalegendaryfictionalappearancehavingcertainvisualorothertraitsmaypreventotherusinghisaspecttosellgoodsandmayassigntherightstousethatattribute.ThisextendedactionofpassingoffupheldbytheAustraliancourtpreventsthewrongfulappropriationofaneminence,orwrongfulassociationofgoodswithanappearancebelongingtoaclaimant.InthePacificDunlopcase(1989)14IPR398,theFederalCourtofAustraliaaffirmedanaccommodationwhichupheldanactioninpassingoff.Theprosecutorsuedthelitigantsforatelevisiongeneralnoticeofsalewhichwaseasilyrecognizableasbeingaparodyofascenefromtheplaintiff'sfilmCrocodileDundee.TheFederalCourtassertedthetestwaswhetheracogentsectionwouldbemisledintobelievingthatabarteringarrangementhadbeenconcludedbetweentheoffenderandtheaccuserunderwhichthecomplainantagreedtotheadvertising.CanadaCanadiancommonlawidentifiestherighttopersonalityonalimitedbasis.Itwasfirstacknowledgedinthe1971intheOntarioaccordofKrousev.ChryslerCanadaLtd.(1971),5C.P.R.(2d)30.TheCourtheldthatwhereapersonhasmarketablevalueintheirlikenessandithasbeenusedinamannerthatsuggestsasupportofaproductthentherearegroundsforanactivityinappropriationofmagnetism.ThisrightwaslaterexpandeduponinAthansv.CanadianAdventureCampsLtd.etal.(1977),17O.R.(2d)425(Ont.H.C.J.)wheretheCourtheldthatthepersonalityrightcontainedboththecarboncopyandname.EnglandandWalesEnglandandWaleshavefollowedtheAustraliandevelopmentofthelaw.IntheMirageStudioscase[1991]FSR145,Browne-Wilkinson,V.C.,afterreferringtotheAustraliancasesofChildren'sTelevisionWorkshopv.Woolworths(NSW)Ltd.[1981]RPC187andFidoDidoInc.v.VentureStores(Retailers)16IPR365,conjecturedthelawasdevelopedinAustraliaissound.Thereisnoreasonwhyaremedyinpassingoffshouldnotcoveracasewherethepublicismisledinarelevantwayastoafeatureorqualityofthegoodssoldwhenagilityisbroughtbythepeoplewithwhomthepublicassociatethatfeatureorquality.Aninteriminjunctionwasgranted.ThefirstlitigantwastheownerofthecopyrightinthedrawingsoffictitioushumanoidbadgesknownasTeenageMutantNinjaTurtlesandpartoftheirbusinesswastolicensethereproductionoftheselikenessongoodssoldbyothers.Thefirstdefendantmadedrawingsofhumanoidturtle‟scharacterssimilarinappearancetothefirstplaintiff's,utilizingtheconceptofturtlesratherthantheindubitabledrawingsofTurtles.FranceInFrancepersonalityrightsarebulwarkedunderarticle9oftheFrenchcivilcode.Whileoverboardknownfactsandeffigiesofpublicfiguresarenotgenerallyinsulated,useofsomeone'simageorpersonalhistoryhasbeenheldprosecutableunderFrenchlaw.ThelegionnotableofthemanycasesinrecenthistoryisperhapsthepublicationofthebookontheFrenchPresidentFrançoisMitterrandcalledLeGrandSecretinwhichMitterrand'sdoctorpublishedabookthatnotonlydisclosedintimatefactsaboutMr.Mitterrand'slife,butalsouncoveredmedicalconfidencesharboredbydoctor-patientprivilege.UnitedStatesTherightofpublicityevolvedoutoftherightofprivacyintheUnitedStates,andisstillsometimescontrived(erroneously)asubsetofprivacyrights.Somemightruminateittherighttochargefor(orbarentirely)thecommissaryexploitationofname,likeness,voiceorpersonality.Typically,butbynomeansexclusively,theRightofPublicityismanifestinadvertisingormerchandise.TheRightofPublicityisastate-basedright,asdebatedtoFederal,andtodate,eighteenstateshaveenactedRightof