The New York appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that even though the film was a dramatization that made changes to certain aspects of the story, it still addressed matters of public interest and acknowledged that it was a blend of fact and fiction; therefore, it was exempt from the right of publicity claim.
A.B. 5605 and S.B. 5959 would create a right of publicity for the life of a person plus 40 years after their death. It would bar the use of a person’s name, portrait or picture, voice, or signature (collectively, their persona) without written consent in advertising or for the purposes of trade (or fundraising).
H.B. 180 would deem to be profit from a crime any income generated from a movie, book, or any other media that describes or depicts the crime and includes any thoughts, feelings, opinions, or emotions of “an individual.”
H.B. 179 is a right of publicity bill that would make the unauthorized use of a person’s likeness a misdemeanor crime. There is a very limited exception to the right for use of a person’s likeness in “news, public affairs, or sports broadcast,” but not for any other media or other type of content.
H.B. 377 would create a right of publicity for the life of the person plus 70 years postmortem. There is an exception for non-commercial uses unless the “identity is used to create an unauthorized performance.”
A.B. 8155b and S.B. 5857b would amend New York’s existing right of privacy law to create a new right of publicity for the life of a person plus 40 years after their death. It would bar the use of a person’s name, portrait or picture, voice or signature — i.e., their persona — without their consent in advertising or for the purposes of trade. The new right is a property right that can be transferred and is inheritable. Name is defined to include a person’s nickname.
Plaintiffs Lohan and Gravano argued to rewrite New York Civil Rights Law Section 51 to include protections against the inclusion of “image,” “persona,” or “likeness” in any work for which a creator or publisher seeks compensation.
Dr. Edward Tobinick sued Dr. Steven Novella, a professor at Yale University Medical School, for criticizing his unusual medical treatments that he provides at his clinics in Florida and California. In a blog post on his website “Science Based Medicine,” Novella called Tobinick’s clinic, the Institute of Neurological Recovery, a “quack clinic.” Novella also took issue that Tobinick used the anti-inflammatory drug Enbrel to treat Alzheimer’s disease, as reported by an article in the Los Angeles Times.
Media Coalition Foundation joined an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to uphold the lower court’s ruling that Idaho’s “ag-gag” law is unconstitutional.
New York A.B. 8155 and S.B. 5857 would amend the state’s existing right of publicity law to extend the right to individuals post mortem and broaden the right beyond a person’s name, portrait, picture or voice.
Summary Louisiana HB 415 would create a right of publicity for the life of a person plus 50 years. The right applies to a person’s “identity,” which is defined as their name, voice, signature, photograph,...
Hawaii S.B. 1207 would impose civil liability on any author or publisher of a visitor guide or website that describes activities or attractions on privately or publicly owned land, if a person suffers an injury or dies on such property. It is companion to H.B. 548.
Hawaii H.B. 548 would impose civil liability on any author or publisher of a visitor guide or website that describes activities or attractions on privately or publicly owned land, if a person suffers an injury or dies on such property. It is companion to S.B. 1207.
Massachusetts H.B. 1399 would require anyone who enters into a contract with anyone charged or convicted of a crime to report it to the state Attorney General and post a bond equal to the value of the contract.
California A.B. 538 would require anyone that enters into a contract for “the sale of the story of a crime for which the offender was convicted” with a person convicted of specified crimes to report it to the Office of Survivor Rights and Services.
New York A.B. 7904 and S.B. 5650 would create a right of publicity in a person’s name, voice, signature, image or likeness for any person deceased within the last 70 years who was domiciled at New York at the time of death. There is an exception for expressive use, but there is a “caveat” to this exception.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania struck down a Pennsylvania law that allowed victims to stop conduct — including speech — by a convicted offender if it causes “mental anguish.”
Alabama S.B. 197 would create a right of publicity in a person’s “indicia of identity.” There is an exception for expressive works, but for expressive works that are “a replica as to constitute a copy,” the exception is contingent on the use being protected by the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.
Arkansas S.B. 79 would create a right of publicity in an individual’s name, voice, signature, image or likeness. Artistic use is exempted from the right, but only if the use is protected by the First Amendment.
Pennsylvania H.B. 2533 and S.B. 508 would allow a victim of a personal injury crime to bring a civil action against any offender to obtain injunctive relief for “conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.”
Arizona H.B. 2660 would create a civil cause of action against any distributor or producer of “dangerous” material that is found to produce or incite a felony.
New Hampshire S.B. 175 would create a right of publicity, explicitly giving individuals the right to control the use of his or her identity for 70 years in addition to their lifetime. An amendment to bill removed a section that allowed exceptions for works of or in the media.
The U.S. District Court struck down the City of Bellingham’s ordinance that provided a cause of action to allow individuals to sue publishers and retailers for producing material containing depictions or descriptions of nudity or sexual activity.
The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed the 7th Circuit’s decision striking down as unconstitutional the Indianapolis ordinance that defined “pornography” as a form of sex discrimination. The ordinance allowed individuals to sue a producer or distributor of material containing depictions or descriptions of nudity or sexual activity.
