Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights

from the might-want-to-rethink-that-one... dept

Lindsay Lohan is no stranger to questionable publicity rights claims. After all, she sued E*Trade, because the company had a commercial with a baby named Lindsay, who was described as a "milkaholic," and she insisted that this was meant to be a reference to her (something no one else actually thought). The latest is that Lindsay, who's facing time in jail for stealing a necklace, is apparently so upset that the jewelry store surveillance video of her stealing the necklace has been released, and shown on Entertainment Tonight, that she's threatening to sue the jewelry store where it was taken, suggesting it was an abuse of her publicity rights.
Of course, core to her argument is the idea that the store sold the tape, but the store denies this. Even if it were true that the store sold the tape, it's difficult to see how there's a legitimate publicity rights claim here. But, of course, with publicity rights still being a new and somewhat untested area of law, you could actually see a judge buying such a ridiculous claim.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Andrew, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:40am

    hahah

    Hahaha, wow. Good old Lindsay Lohan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:42am

    Would the video have value if Ms Lohan wasn't in it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:45am

    Re:

    No, because inside Lindsay Lohan's mind, she's the centre of all relevance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:45am

    You stay classy, Linsday.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:47am

    Re: Re:

    The problem is that the woman in the video clearly isn't her. I didn't see a single speck of cocaine....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:48am

    Violated her bad publicity rights, maybe, which is the only kind of publicity she ought to be getting...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:49am

    Seriously?!

    Maybe Lindsay can talk to Pamela about publicity rights.

    And what's really amazing is that Lohan actually stole the damn thing and basically wants to make money off it.

    What's next? This was a chance for her to stimulate the economy?

    No, I got it. It was for a role in a movie. Classic!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Obviously, that day she was on Charlie Sheen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That was BEFORE she stepped in.

    Now if she tripped and fell, maybe we could tell...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 8:55am

    Re: Seriously?!

    No, the jewelry store is trying to make money off of it (they are also shopping a book about it, go figure). Lohan didn't put the tape out there, she is only trying to get it stopped.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:01am

    Wow (it appears allegedly) that she actually (allegedly) did (allegedly) steal the necklace. I assumed that the store loaned it to her to wear to some party/event/etc, but that she simply was "too busy" to give it back. So the store was forced to have charges filed against her.

    But wow, she actually (allegedly) stole it (allegedly.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:02am

    Re: Re: Seriously?!

    Please cite the law where it's illegal for a store owner to sell his own security tapes. Thanks, I won't be holding my breath.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    The publicity rights law would be first here. A video tape of other visitors to the store wouldn't be valuable. The tape is valuable only because of who is on it.

    Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    The publicity rights law would be first here. A video tape of other visitors to the store wouldn't be valuable. The tape is valuable only because of who is on it.

    Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Bas Grasmayer (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:11am

    lolwut, publicity rights? That's the best she's got?

    speechless. ^_^

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    First, where in that statute does it say that a store owner cannot sell his own security tapes? Thanks.

    Second, you have no right to privacy when you're in public. If you want to privately steal stuff (allegedly), do it in the privacy of your own home. Once you go out in public, everything you do is fair game.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    So let's get this straight...

    ANYONE should be allowed to use publicity rights laws to hide their identities in public?

    Your logic seems quite flawed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    "The publicity rights law would be first here. A video tape of other visitors to the store wouldn't be valuable. The tape is valuable only because of who is on it."

    How about other visitors stealing, though? Refer to Failblog and such for a whole bunch of those.

    "Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?"

    I know in the UK there are laws that make it illegal to hand over CCTV footage except in exceptional circumstances, but AFAIK there's no similar legislation in the US.

    So, was it unethical to hand over the footage? I would say yes. Was it illegal? I'd say probably not. I think it's the same disparity between morality and legality that comes up in file-sharing discussions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:24am

    Not that I am defending her...but...

    Wouldn't she have some rights? The store *sold* the tape and made a huge profit on it. Wouldn't she have a right to some of that pie?

    Just curious

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    The publicity rights law would be first here. A video tape of other visitors to the store wouldn't be valuable. The tape is valuable only because of who is on it.

    I would think that any tape showing someone shoplifting becomes more valuable, especially to the store.

    Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?

    There is no expectation of privacy inside of any store for anyone, including celebrities.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    Again, given all the same circumstances, but the person is "joe blow" instead of Lohan, is the tape as valuable? No. They are selling it based on her being in it, her name, etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    BigKeithO (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:29am

    Re: Not that I am defending her...but...

    She was in public, it isn't her tape... Why should she get money?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:32am

    Re: Not that I am defending her...but...

    Wouldn't she have some rights? The store *sold* the tape and made a huge profit on it. Wouldn't she have a right to some of that pie?

    No. That's exactly how the paparazzi make their livings.

    Copyright is granted to the creator of the art, not the subject.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    Again, given all the same circumstances, but the person is "joe blow" instead of Lohan, is the tape as valuable? No. They are selling it based on her being in it, her name, etc.

    It may be more valuable, but that is irrelevant. Public place, no expectation of privacy what so ever and she was not the creator of the work. The paparazzi's photos of Lohan are more valuable than their photos of Joe Nobody. So what?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    WTF? She is a CRIMINAL.

    No, not the imaginary property kind of criminal. The actual physical I-take-your-stuff-so-you-no-longer-have-it kind of criminal. And now she wants to cash in on publicity rights?

    Let her rot in jail.

    Do not pass go. Do not collect publicity rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:40am

    Wonderful

    So I guess the theory is that I now lose rights to my own property (surveillance tape) just because someone famous walks in and is captured by the system?

    Someone needs to end this nonsense now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    There's no "famous person" exception in the law. If it's legal to sell a tape (and there's no indication the tape was even sold here) of Average Joe stealing, then it's legal to sell a tape of Lohan stealing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:45am

    Re: Not that I am defending her...but...

    > Wouldn't she have some rights? The store
    > *sold* the tape and made a huge profit
    > on it. Wouldn't she have a right to some
    > of that pie?

    Nope. Not any more than she has a right to part of the money made from all the paparazzi photos taken of her as she walks in and of court and rehab and wherever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:51am

    Re: Wonderful

    Someone needs to end this nonsense now.

    I agree.

    This whole "publicity rights" thing seems more and more like whiny people saying "Wahhhh, someone's doing a better job making money from my puplic image than I am, so they OWE me!!!!".

    I mean really, if you want your public image to be pristine...DO NOT DO STUPID THINGS IN PUBLIC. Not a hard concept.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    ...Average Joe stealing...

    Careful, he's gonna be a lawyer someday and might try to sue you for that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 9:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    No, no, no. Only important people can use the law to hide their identities in public. Us plebs don't rate that high.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 10:01am

    Re: Re: Wonderful

    FTFY DO NOT DO STUPID THINGS, specially IN PUBLIC. Not a hard concept.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    imeanwhat, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 10:09am

    Really?

    Since when is it Gloria Allred's business to judge Lindsay Lohan's courtroom attire? Think someone's jealous she's not on the case? Weigh in @imeanwhat http://bit.ly/hRmxbs

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 10:15am

    What's amazing is that if Lindsay were a big corporation, it will likely win. The rules don't seem to apply to big corporations in the same way that they apply to individuals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    The publicity rights law would be first here

    Which publicity rights law? You say "the" as if there's one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    There's no "famous person" exception in the law.

    Actually, there *are* some laws that do have famous person exceptions, including some publicity rights laws. Some of them have required that the person's likeness have commercial value to qualify. Also, some libel laws have different rules for famous people.

    So, you should be careful there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Hiiragi Kagami (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 10:27am

    There is good news here!

    Despite the privacy claim, there's no denying the silver lining with this news: This is, by far, the best movie Lindsay has ever been in.

    Sadly, no pole dancing. *snap*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    icepick314, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 10:28am

    WTF?

    that milkaholic needs to get some sense slapped into her...

    p.s. she's now forever "milkaholic" since SHE brought it up...

    it never occurred to me to link Lindsay and "milkaholic" when that commercial aired...while the commercials where funny I never thought of Lindsay Lohan when that "milkaholic" commercial came on...

    now everytime I see an E-trade commercial, E-trade pulled that "milkaholic" commercial off the air, all I can think about is that stupid milkaholic and her silly antics...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 10:36am

    Re: There is good news here!

    "Despite the privacy claim, there's no denying the silver lining with this news: This is, by far, the best movie Lindsay has ever been in."

    Comment of the day, as far as I'm concerned....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Michael, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    "Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?"

    She was in public. That takes away the privacy part of this. In a public place, you can video tape anything you want. You may have a wire-tapping issue if there was sound recorded, but she has no expectation of privacy when she is in public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    Perhaps I should have said "this law" instead of "the law".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Huph, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    Re: WTF?

    I don't know. I'm fairly pop culture savvy, since it's part of my job, and I immediately got what the advertisers were going for when they made that spot. I think it's *clear* that they were implying Lindsay Lohan, though I don't think they should suffer legal recourse since Lindsay is a common name and they never explicitly, or overtly, made reference to Lindsay Lohan. Nor is calling someone a "milkaholic" any kind of defamation.

    But then again, I'm well aware that there are absolutely no accidents in a commercial, or on a magazine cover; basically anything that involves a publicist is never "an accident." These people agonize for days over fake names for fake characters in their fake commercials (as Charles Barkley has said of advertising spots: "They got a woman who makes sure the cheese on your taco looks right!") There's not a chance in hell that someone at the ad firm wasn't aware of the implication, even if the name was originally chosen because it was one of their children's names. Someone on their, or E*Trade's legal firm almost definitely advised against using the name for this reason, and I'm sure the marketing people chose not to worry about it. I'm not saying it's right, but this is what happens.

    That being said, I still think Lindsay should have let it go. It's the price you pay for being a celebrity. It was basically equivalent to an SNL send-up. Brush that dirt off your shoulder and go buy a fancy necklace or somethin... wait a minute...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Luke Stackwalker, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    OK Mike, so which is it? In Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?! you ask ""Which publicity rights law?" then in Re:^7 you say that some pub rights laws DO have famous persons exceptions.

    Is there is or is there ain't no pub rights laws?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    OK Mike, so which is it? In Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?! you ask ""Which publicity rights law?" then in Re:^7 you say that some pub rights laws DO have famous persons exceptions.

    When I said "which publicity rights law" I did not mean that there were none. I meant that there are many. The commenter said "the" one, and I can't evaluate that claim because I don't know which one he means.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 3:23pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The video compression removed all traces :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 3:30pm

    Lindsay Lohan the petty thief, Charlie Sheen the crazy drug addict, Mel Gibson the drunk anti-semitic dude and a lot of lesser musicians going to jail, Tom Cruise the cult follower, this is not entertaining this is tragic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Ryan Diederich, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 5:02pm

    Well....

    Lindsay is gross, for starters. Why do people feel the need to break the law when they are filthy rich? Doesnt make any sense to me.


    Anyways, she wont (shouldnt, according to the law anyways) win this case. Here are the reasons:

    If there are any laws about public recordings, they are moot here. This WAS NOT IN PUBLIC!!! This was a private business, free to videotape/record whatever it wants.

    As such, the video is also private property, and unless it was evidence (not sure if there is a law about selling evidence). They are free to do what they please with it. Even MORE SO than paparazzi in public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Mar 18th, 2011 @ 7:27pm

    Re: Not that I am defending her...but...

    How do we know the store sold the tape? Lohan says they did, the store says they did not. No other evidence in either direction has been presented.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2011 @ 4:44am

    There seems to be a simple solution:

    The store should just give her the necklaces as her part of the cut.

    *shrug*

    It's not like she's a *slips on sunglasses*
    Milkaholic.

    YYEAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2011 @ 6:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!

    You should head over to www.informationliberation.com and read the stories about people photographing and recording cops.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2011 @ 6:31am

    Why WOULD the store release this tape for public consumption? What would be their motivation for doing so?
    Furthermore, if the store is going to make a case against Lindsay, isn't this video considered evidence? Why would they release evidence to the public before a trial? Wouldn't this interfere with her right to a fair trial?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 19th, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re: WTF?

    That being said, I still think Lindsay should have let it go. It's the price you pay for being a celebrity. It was basically equivalent to an SNL send-up. Brush that dirt off your shoulder and go buy a fancy necklace or somethin... wait a minute...

    Or better yet, cash in. See if she can get in on a Got Milk? ad campaign as a milkaholic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

    Which publicity rights law? You say "the" as if there's one.

    How about California's right of publicity law... you know, the state where the alleged theft occurred, where Lindsay lives, and where the recording was made?

    Another post where no law is provided, and the facts presented in such a way so as to incite anger, fear and disgust in IP laws (publicity rights are a subset of unfair competition law). How about some analysis? Or is it easier to get everyone into a frenzy in the comments by not doing so? Hyperbole drives comments and views, right Mike?

    Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to prove his or her deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs. California Civil Code Section 3344

    In California, there is no requirement that the person's name or likeness be commercially valuable (although, Linday's obviously is).

    Make up your own mind on whether she'll prevail... but at least read and try to understand the applicable laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Mar 19th, 2011 @ 5:15pm

    Re:

    It seems like the law you quoted explicitly says why it wouldn't apply in this case:

    on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services

    They're not using the tape in advertisements for their jewelry store.

    Furthermore, you missed an important part of the statute:

    For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).

    For reference, that statute is California Code Section 3344.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Mar 19th, 2011 @ 5:26pm

    Re: Re:

    Incidentally, there's an overview of relevant caselaw, here:

    Practitioner's Guide to California Right of Publicity Law

    I found Joplin Enterprises v. Allen quite interesting:

    In Joplin, the District Court applied California's Section 990 to hold that a two-act biographical play about deceased vocalist Janis Joplin was not actionable.

    This makes the whole "Jackie Jormp-Jomp" thing on 30 Rock even funnier.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 19th, 2011 @ 6:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Hang on, an AC cherry picked evidence? Shocking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2011 @ 6:34pm

    Re: Re:

    Karl,

    The thrust of my post was the vapid and conclusory nature of Mike's post. Reasonable minds can disagree, but only when they have the relevant facts. Glad to talk about the issues with you, though.

    I disagree with you. The surveillance video is undoubtedly a "good" or "product" on or in which Lindsay's likeness is being used without her permission. This is precisely what publicity laws seeks to prevent. "The term 'right of publicity' has since come to signify the right of an individual, especially a public figure or a celebrity, to control the commercial value and exploitation of his name and picture or likeness and to prevent others from unfairly appropriating this value for their commercial benefit." Estate of Elvis Presley, 513 F. Supp. 1339.

    And Lindsay isn't suing news outlets, she's suing the jewelry store that is exploiting Lindsay's notoriety for its own financial gain. Thus, the exception you cited doesn't apply.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Mar 19th, 2011 @ 10:54pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The thrust of my post was the vapid and conclusory nature of Mike's post.

    You say "vapid," I say "common sense."

    The surveillance video is undoubtedly a "good" or "product" on or in which Lindsay's likeness is being used without her permission.

    As far as I know, they're not using the footage to promote the store at all, so I don't think there's a "product" there.

    From what I can tell, she's angry that the footage is being released at all, even to news outlets. Whether money changes hands or not, that's certainly a "public affairs" matter, so the statute probably wouldn't apply. It might be different if it was "Lindsay Lohan's Girls Gone Wild" or something like that, but that's not what's going on here.

    Assuming the store even sold the footage at all, which they deny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Mar 19th, 2011 @ 11:14pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Hmm. I just re-read the article, and it clearly explains the "news or public affairs" restriction on publicity rights. Makes it all the more odd that you didn't even bring it up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 20th, 2011 @ 12:51am

    Re: Re: WTF?

    You say there are no accidents in commercials or magazine covers, so how do typos and blatant grammatical errors make it through?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Man with Lantern (profile), Mar 20th, 2011 @ 9:07am

    Who cares about the theft?

    LiLo should be put in jail for wearing boots with shorts!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 20th, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As far as I know, they're not using the footage to promote the store at all

    Who said anything about promoting the store? They are (allegedly) promoting and selling a video, the good, which contains Lindsay's name or likeness. Period.

    And the jewelry store is not a news outlet, and thus the exception does not apply. Not sure why you think the buyer matters. She's not suing the buyer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 20th, 2011 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And the jewelry store is not a news outlet, and thus the exception does not apply.

    The exception reads "For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a)." That doesn't say anything about who is using the likeness, only how it's used. So it looks to me like she'll have to prove the store sold the tape or she'll have no case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 20th, 2011 @ 2:53pm

    Re: Who cares about the theft?

    If you're a woman, you sound like you're jealous. If you're a man, you sound like you're gay.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 12:41am

    Re:

    How about California's right of publicity law... you know, the state where the alleged theft occurred, where Lindsay lives, and where the recording was made?

    Yup. I figured you'd say that. That's what I wanted to make sure. You claimed "the" publicity rights law, but there are multiple ones. And California's does not apply here. I was waiting for you to make this claim to point that out, but others have. It's a newsworthy video. Thus, sorry, no publicity rights.

    Thanks for playing, we'll catch you next time around.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re:

    Yup. I figured you'd say that.

    Not the same AC, Mike. Thanks for playing.

    It's a newsworthy video. Thus, sorry, no publicity rights.

    The exception protects media outlets, not jewelry stores. Incidentally, whether there is a public interest in a use affects the requisite burden of proof required to prove a violation. It's not an absolute bar to a claim as you suggest. But expecting such a nuanced legal evaluation from TechDirt is unrealistic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The exception protects media outlets, not jewelry stores.

    The exception reads "For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a)." That doesn't say anything about who is using the likeness, only how it's used. This use is clearly in connection with a news broadcast, so the exception would apply.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 21st, 2011 @ 11:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The exception protects media outlets, not jewelry stores. Incidentally, whether there is a public interest in a use affects the requisite burden of proof required to prove a violation. It's not an absolute bar to a claim as you suggest. But expecting such a nuanced legal evaluation from TechDirt is unrealistic

    It's great when a totally ignorant AC tries to mockingly explain the law to me, and then gets it wrong.

    Sorry, the law makes no statement about media outlets. The law addresses the content, not the venue or the party. You lose.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 1:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, the law makes no statement about media outlets

    No, but it does make a statement about use that is made "in connection with" a news broadcast or account. The jewelry store is selling the tape for its own financial gain, not using it in connection with a news broadcast or account. The fact that a media outlet purchases it and ultimately uses it in such a manner serves only to protect their specific use, not the jewelry store's. You can see why the purchaser's use is irrelevant to the seller's liability, right?

    By the way Mike, it's nice that you're now debating the merits of a publicity claim under California's right of publicity statute (the actual law at issue). Based on my initial post, commentators have posted actual law, exceptions to the law, and some actual analysis. It's unfortunate that (a) you never posted any of this analysis in your article, and (b) that, each of your posts is full of snarky, immature comments (nothing new).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 3rd, 2013 @ 5:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Sacredjunk, Dec 3rd, 2013 @ 8:28pm

    Re: Wonderful

    So then who gets the rights if two famous people walk in (in the same frame)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Dec 3rd, 2013 @ 9:17pm

    Re: Re: Wonderful

    So then who gets the rights if two famous people walk in (in the same frame)?

    Neither or both. In other words, if there are legitimate publicity rights, then you would have to get permission from (or obscure the identity of) each of them before doing anything public with the video.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This