Reconciling California's Pre, Post, and Per Mortem Rights of Publicity

Keenan C. Fennimore
{"title":"Reconciling California's Pre, Post, and Per Mortem Rights of Publicity","authors":"Keenan C. Fennimore","doi":"10.18060/17867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In May 2010 the California legislature passed AB 585, an assembly bill extending the state's post mortem right of publicity to people whose identities have commercial value because of their death. 1 The bill amended California Civil Code section 3344.1, which previously protected only people whose identities had commercial value at the time of their death.2 AB 585 was proposed in response to the then-recent controversy surrounding the sale of tshirts protesting the war in Iraq and featuring the names of American soldiers who died while serving there.3 The law now entitles families of deceased soldiers to compensation for such unauthorized commercial use.4 At least five other U.S. states statutorily recognize publicity rights for deceased soldiers;5 however, AB 585 was unique in that it extended protection to the non-military deceased as well.6 In general, the U.S. right of publicity is \"the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity.\"7 Although nearly two-thirds of all U.S. states recognize some form of publicity protection, either by statute or common law,8 a sufficient justification for how and why the law provides such a right remains in dispute.9 Despite some initial disinclination among courts and commentators toward categorizing the right of publicity, 10 what was once considered only a proprietary interest in the","PeriodicalId":230320,"journal":{"name":"Indiana international and comparative law review","volume":"8 8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana international and comparative law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/17867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In May 2010 the California legislature passed AB 585, an assembly bill extending the state's post mortem right of publicity to people whose identities have commercial value because of their death. 1 The bill amended California Civil Code section 3344.1, which previously protected only people whose identities had commercial value at the time of their death.2 AB 585 was proposed in response to the then-recent controversy surrounding the sale of tshirts protesting the war in Iraq and featuring the names of American soldiers who died while serving there.3 The law now entitles families of deceased soldiers to compensation for such unauthorized commercial use.4 At least five other U.S. states statutorily recognize publicity rights for deceased soldiers;5 however, AB 585 was unique in that it extended protection to the non-military deceased as well.6 In general, the U.S. right of publicity is "the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity."7 Although nearly two-thirds of all U.S. states recognize some form of publicity protection, either by statute or common law,8 a sufficient justification for how and why the law provides such a right remains in dispute.9 Despite some initial disinclination among courts and commentators toward categorizing the right of publicity, 10 what was once considered only a proprietary interest in the
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
调和加州的事前、事后和事后宣传权
2010年5月,加州立法机构通过了第585号法案,这是一项议会法案,将该州的死后公示权扩大到那些因死亡而具有商业价值的人。该法案修订了加州民法典第3344.1条,该条款以前只保护那些在死亡时身份具有商业价值的人AB 585的提出是为了回应最近围绕着抗议伊拉克战争的t恤的争议,t恤上印有在伊拉克服役期间死亡的美国士兵的名字现在,法律规定阵亡士兵的家属有权对这种未经授权的商业用途获得赔偿美国至少有五个州在法律上承认阵亡士兵的公开权;然而,AB 585的独特之处在于,它也将保护范围扩大到非军人阵亡者总的来说,美国的形象权是“每个人控制其身份被商业利用的固有权利”。尽管美国近三分之二的州通过成文法或普通法承认某种形式的宣传保护,但法律如何以及为什么提供这种权利的充分理由仍存在争议尽管法院和评论家最初不愿意对公开权进行分类,但曾经被认为只是法律上的专有权益
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sanctimonious Barbarity: The Forced Pregnancy Alito Dobbs Opinion Self-Determination: What Lessons from Kashmir? Striking a Balance: Extending Minimum Rights to U.S. Gig Economy Workers Based on E.U. Directive 2019/1153 on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions Issue Preclusion Out of the U.S. (?) The Evolution of the Italian Doctrine of Res Judicata in Comparative Context Animal Welfare, Who Cares? Why the United Nations Needs to Tackle Horse-Soring
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1