In each of the cases discussed in this report, the court is presented the challenge of deciding whether to protect a celebrityʻs right to publicity or to protect and artistʻs constitutional right to free speech. These protections are at conflict because the First amendment encourages the unencumbered exchange of ideas and public discourse, which celebrities are an inextricable part of. Yet, the right to publicity entitles a celebrity to profit from their reputation and prevent others from doing so. Despite the similarities present between these cases, the evidence presented as well as the circumstances surrounding each case distinguish them from each other. For example, the first two cases involve the argument of a videogame companyʻs use of …show more content…
Sega of America case, singer Keirin Kirby claimed that the video game distribution company Sega appropriated her persona in their video game Space Channel 5. Kirby argued that Sega created the main character of the video game, Ulala, to resemble her specific fashion choices, dance moves, and personality for their economic gain. She also asserted that because she did not authorize Sega to appropriate her persona, they violated her right to publicity. The case lists the notable similarities between Kirby and the Ulala character, including their physical appearance, and even the phrases they use (144 Cal. App. 4th pg. 48). Another similarity mentioned is that the video game characterʻs name is similar to the phrase “ooh la la,” which Kirby argued is her distinctive phrase that she uses to introduce herself in one of her music videos and is a part of three of her songs (144 Cal. App. 4th pg. 47). Despite these numerous similarities, the court decided that they were inadequate in demonstrating an infringement of Kirbyʻs right of publicity under the “transformative test.” This test is applied in cases involving the right of publicity to determine if an artistʻs depiction incorporates some elements of a celebrityʻs identity but adds significant changes to it for originality (144 Cal. App. 4th pg. 47). If the work is not significantly original and is a replication of the celebrityʻs identity, then it does not receive First amendment …show more content…
App. 4th pg. 1018). Another feature allowed players to manipulate the voices of the band members to sing in the voice of the opposite sex (192 Cal. App. 4th pg. 1018). Lastly, players had the option to make the band members perform individually or with members of other bands that were also featured in the game (192 Cal. App. 4th pg. 1018). No Doubt did not agree to Activisionʻs use of their identities for any of these purposes. In applying the transformative test, the court found that Activisionʻs depictions of the band members were obviously imitative and should not be protected by the First
When considering the issue of celebrities receiving unfair treatment by making their punishment worse than a regular persons is totally un orthodox so it is essential to know that their regular too. Also all people don’t know what rules they are violating or what rules they need to know so they won’t violate them. All people aren’t guilty neither are they all innocent but they should suffer equal consequences.
In prior cases regarding parody, the court has adopted different statutory interpretations. In Harley Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806 (2nd Cir. 1998), the defendant like Pets, Inc., admitted to purposively creating an association with the plaintiff’s mark, the wordings used by the CEO of Pets, Inc. are not as explicit as that of Grottanelli, however, he clearly states that he designed Petpel No. 13 to evoke fun of Chapel. His statement
Today is the day of the trial for the Faden vs Walt Disney, I am Mister Faden's attorney. This should be an easy case to win, its so obvious that Mister Faden’s video was fair, that doesn't mean I won’t take it seriously, just that i am confident. When i arrive at the courtroom my client is already seated along with most of the jury and the judge. As i am sitting there i can’t help but to think about how ironic this entire case is, the video itself was about copyright, its almost as if he wanted this to happen. Its time to make our opening statements, defendants are up first. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent, and has not committed any crimes against Disney. As i am sure you know, Mister Faden made a video concerning
Marshall P. David (1997). Celebrity Power; Fame in Contemporary Culture. May 16, 2010. Electronically retrieved from
Roy is a person from Montana who moved to Florida. As the new kid, he gets bullied on the bus. When Roy sees a boy about his age running away from the school bus, with no shoes or backpack, He gets curious about who it is. Then, he follows the person into a golf course which Roy gets hit in the head with a golf ball. Soon, Roy finds out who the person is and becomes friends with him, in a little time the boy said his name is “Mullet Fingers.” Figuring out that he vandalizes the Mother Paula's site for a new building, to protect some burrowing owls. Roy wants to see the owls. So during the night, Roy, Mullet Fingers, and Mullet Finger's sister get some ground meat make them into meatballs and then put them at the entrance of the holes where
Valenti, F. Miguel. More Than a Movie : Ethics in Entertainment. Colorado: Westview Press, 2000
This is demonstrated in the fact that it has taken nearly three decades to break through heteronormative attitudes within gaming since the first homosexual video game character in 1986. Equally as important for the queer community, an entire game dedicated to LGBT individuals was made in 1988 titled Caper in the Castro which is described by the game designer as “a game that the player assumed the role of a lesbian detective investigating the disappearance of a transgender woman”. Despite this, the game was then coated with heteronormativity and reimagined with heterosexual and cisgender characters titled as Murder on Main Street, by Heizer Software. The designer’s reasoning behind this was that they “wanted to tap into the mainstream audience”. This illustrates the homophobic and transphobic views and treatment of LGBT people in 1988. This is contrasted to the transgender character that featured in game Super Mario Bros. 2, the same year by gaming company Nintendo. The character, Birdo, is a pink creature is is described in the gaming manual as a male who “thinks he is a girl” and would rather be called “Birdetta”. Despite this, her identity is disclosed by Nintendo as they are still conservative in their references to gender and sexuality. In her future appearances in the game franchise, any hint of her transsexuality was removed and her gender was left up to the player’s
A celebrity is not a person known for his/her talent or achievement, but an individual recognized for his/her reputation created by the media. The phase of stardom is slippery, and media may choose to represent celebrities varying from exaggerated admiration to mockery. The three texts chosen, movie "Sunset Boulevard", feature article "Over the Hilton" and television show "Celebrity Uncensored Six" are texts presenting different perception of celebrities than their usual images - either corrupted by the encircling media, overloads oneself with self-indulgence, or just mocks celebrity in a broad spectrum. Such media items empower and impresses the audience by perceiving celebrities as people who pay the price of privacy to gain well knowness, signifying the vanity of stardom from the commonly accepted images.
What about celebrities and people who are constantly in the media? They are just like us, they make mistakes. They have run-ins with the law, they need justice too. When a celebrity needs compensation for a wrongful death case, is it handed to them? When a celebrity has a DUI are their punishments as severe as the usual? When a celebrity is charged with possession of drugs, do they get treated like everyone else? When a celebrity is called for jury duty, are they given a fair chance to participate in this civil duty? Does the legal system go about treating celebrities the same way they would a regular person, why and how?
“Anyone else who uses copyright material in those ways will infringe copyright unless they have permission from the copyright owner or a special exception applies. One act may result in the infringement of several copyrights” (Film & Copyright, 2012, p. ...
The line between news and commercial use is not always clear, however, and even photographs used to illustrate an article may create liability for misappropriation if the article has an overriding commercial purpose.15 Right of publicity Some states recognize a right of publicity, which protects a celebrity’s commercial interest in the exploitation of his or her name or likeness. In some jurisdictions, this right may descend to heirs or be assigned to others after the person’s
...entertainment industry is saying that intellectual property is just as real as physical property. The digital age faces a true balancing act a digital dilemma if you will- the right to freedom of expression while protecting intellectual property.
Adam, Candeub. 2008. Media Ownership Regulation, the First Amendment, and Democracy’s Future. University of California, Davis
In previous years, the issue with the paparazzi and media has grown. With the advances in technology, it makes taking and posting photos of celebrities or public figures much easier. The public appears greedy and feels privy to their private lives. Celebrities, or any public figure, have very limited privacy due to the paparazzi and media. The paparazzi and media are also affecting celebrities’ children. Currently, laws are being put in effect to stop this.
SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 Feb. 2014. Sisto, Joseph. " Do Celebrities Forfeit the Right to Privacy?"