Document Type

Brief

Publication Date

5-18-2018

Abstract

No. 18S-CQ-00134
Akeem Daniels v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 17-3051, The Honorable Judge Easterbrook, Circuit Judge

From the Summary of Argument

Untethered to a sufficient public policy interest, right of publicity claims have exploded nationwide. Plaintiffs have asserted claims against inspirational plaques featuring civil rights icons, Rosa and Raymond Parks Inst. for Self Dev. v. Target Corp., 812 F.3d 824 (11th Cir. 2016),artwork commemorating significant events, Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC, 545 Fed. App’x. 405 , 407 (6th Cir. 2013); ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003), Wikipedia edits that truthfully connected an astronaut with the watch he wore on his Moon walk, Scott v. Citizen Watch Co. of Am., Inc., 17-CV-00436-NC, 2018 WL 1626773 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2018), docudramas, de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC, 21 Cal. App. 5th 845 (2018), and depictions of a company named for its founder, Virag, S.R.L. v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 699 Fed. App’x. 667 (9th Cir. 2017), among many other uses. This Court has the opportunity to keep Indiana’s right of publicity law within more appropriate bounds by focusing on protection of performers against unauthorized recordings (similar to common-law copyright, as recognized in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977)) and unauthorized use of identities in advertising (protecting against false endorsements).

Comments

Amici are professors of law who research, write, and teach in the area of intellectual property.

  • Mark P. McKenna Notre Dame Law School
  • Rebecca Tushnet Harvard Law School
  • Yvette Joy Liebesman Saint Louis University School of Law

Table of Authorities include:

Mark P. McKenna, The Right of Publicity and Autonomous Self-Definition, 67 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 225 (2005).

Download

Share

COinS