50 Cent Sues WorldStarHipHop For Unlawfully Using His Image. Bloggers Take Note!
Rapper 50 Cent is suing the popular website WorldStarHipHop.com for using his image/likeness without his permission. Basically, the website used the rapper’s photo on its home page…like a banner. 50 cent claims the site’s use of his image resulted in increased traffic for the site and the public perception that 50 cent was affiliated with site due to his image prominently placed on WorldStarHipHop.com’s home page.
Do blogs, websites, or online magazines have to get permission to use every celebrity’s image or likeness before posting images of that celebrity? Well it depends on for what purpose the site uses the celebrity’s image.
The use of one’s image or likeness is covered under the Right to Publicity law. This law drives from the Right to Privacy. There are four basic Rights to Privacy:
1. Protection from unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another. For example a home or a car,
2. Protection from appropriation of a person’s name or likeness (Right to Publicity). For example using a person’s name or image on a product or service without their permission,
3. Protection from publication of private facts. For example, income tax data, family quarrels, medical treatment, school records, etc.,
4. Protection from publication of information that places a person in a false light.
Prosser, Restatement 2nd of Torts.
The Right to Publicity is triggered where commercial speech is involved, i.e, when a company has used a celebrity’s “name, likeness, or voice” in connection with a product, thereby creating a false and misleading impression that the celebrity is endorsing the product. See, e.g., Eastwood v. Super. Ct., 149 Cal. App. 3d 409, 417 (1983).
In 50 cent case, he claims WorldStarHipHop.com used his image like a banner ad, therefore created the false impression that he was affiliated with the site. The use of his image resulted in increased traffic to the site and therefore increased ad dollars. If 50 cents claims are proven to be true, WorldStarHipHop.com will have to compensate 50 cents for using his image to endorse their product, i.e., their website.
But there are instances when a website can use a celebrity’s image without their permission. Under the First Amendment exception to the Right of Publicity rule, if the image is used in connection with reporting a newsworthy article that is a matter of public interest, then the site does not have to get the celebrity’s permission to use their image or likeness. Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball, 94 Cal. App. 4th 400, 409 (2001); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1182-83 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
For example, when a gossip blog reports breaking news that X celebrity was in an altercation or was caught drinking and driving, use of the celebrity’s image without their permission is permissible. However, if a gossip blog simply has images of celebrities on its site as a banner or as part of the site’s graphics, use of the celebrity’s image is not permissible without first obtaining the permission of the celebrity. In this instance, the site is using the celebrity’s image to promote their blog or site.
Bloggers and websites that report on celebrity news should take note and be very careful when using celebrity images. If the use of the celebrity’s image is not associated with breaking news or “newsworthy”, ALWAYS get permission.
About the Author Latoicha Givens is the founder and a member of the firm Phillips Givens, LLC. Ms. Givens practice includes represention of start-ups, small, and mid-sized businesses in intellectual property matters, specficially, trademarks, copyrights, and licensing issues. She is the author of IPLAW101.com, a blog covering Intellectual Property issues specifically trademark law - trademark registration and infringement; Domain Name Disputes: Cybersquatting; Licensing and Intellectual Property issues in New Media.
See all posts by Latoicha Givens.
RELEASED THIS SUMMER 2010 THE MOST ANTICIPATED URBAN BOOK OF THE YEAR- DOUBLE M.R.
MONEY-MUDER-RESPECT
DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR!
http://www.urbanbookdoublemr.webs.com http://www.publishamerica.com
To place orders for the book, contact:
Publish America LLLPI
P.O. Box 151
Frederick Md 21705 –(301)695-1707
DOUBLE M.R.- MONEY-MURDER-RESPECT
Philadelphia- July, 2010
AUTHOR: William H. Holla , is about to make the streets of Philadelphia not only talk This summer, but scream. for the most anti*****ted urban novel ,titled “DOUBLE M-R (Money
,Murder ,Respect).They say every hood has it's own identity and it's own rules that beg To be followed, but there's one rule that's universal throughout these streets ,”It's death
Before dishonor”…NO snitching”
This dramatic saga tells the story of what life being the son of the man who testified in federal-court,against one of the most dangerous organizations
Out of Philadelphia , called the DOUBLE M-R .
William H. Holla was born in New York ,but raised in the Philadelphia area . William was not only witness to the gritty life of the drug world ,he was a huge player in the game . After paying his long debt to society, William reforms himself for the better . He continued his education by getting a college degree in business , then took on the huge responsibility of working with disadvantaged youth , as a youth counselor . Now taking what he learned and lived , William brings his dramatic experiences to life with vivid written stories as a urban fiction writer
That is why when using images taken from online sources, be sure you have permission to use it. Or at least give proper credit to your sources.
Its really cool, I came to know this really worth visiting, just bookmarked your site.
http://gisnap.com/
The place where fun never ends
For some reason I couldn't reply to your post directly Latoicha, but you are 100% correct. That is your argument. I saw the phrase “right to privacy” in your note, and the bullet points regarding its various forms, and confused what you were saying. I thought you were saying he had a right to privacy claim as well as publicity, but you were saying he just has a right to publicity claim, which derives from the right of privacy. My bad. Good information to have out there nonetheless re: the Gines-Perez case.
Hi Indo:
That is my argument exactly! 50 cents has a Right to Publicity Claim as I stated in the article and in my earlier reply to you. And as I stated in my earlier reply, he also has a copyright and trademark infringement claim. I never claimed he had a Right to Privacy Claim. The
Right to Publicity derives from the Right to Privacy Law. However, the case you cited looks interesting. I will review and let you know my thoughts! Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
All the best!
Latoicha
Hi Indo:
That is my argument exactly! 50 cents has a Right to Publicity Claim as I stated in the article and in my earlier reply to you. And as I stated in my earlier reply, he also has a copyright and trademark infringement claim. I never claimed he had a Right to Privacy Claim. The
Right to Publicity derives from the Right to Privacy Law. However, the case you cited looks interesting. I will review and let you know my thoughts! Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
All the best!
Latoicha
Thanks for replying Latoicha! This 50 situation just didn't sit right with me, so I looked into it a little further on Lexis. What I know from my extensive experience online is that photos are posted all the time of models/actors, aspiring and well known, on various blogs and message boards. It seemed counterintuitive to me that these models, many of whom are actually seeking attention by deliberately disseminating risqué photos of themselves on the net, could then have an invasion of privacy action against a blogger that posted those photos.
Enter United States v. Gines-Perez, 214 F. Supp. 2d 205, 225 (D. Puerto Rico 2002). In that case the court held: “[P]lacing information on the information superhighway necessarily makes said matter accessible to the public, no matter how many protectionist measures may be taken, or even when a web page is 'under construction.'” “[I]t strikes the Court as obvious that a claim to privacy is unavailable to someone who places information on an indisputably, public medium, such as the Internet, without taking any measures to protect the information.”
So it would seem then that 50 doesn't really have an invasion of privacy action so much as a right of publicity claim, and possibly a copyright claim. This is an important distinction to make, because sites like Media Take Out would be out of business if they needed express written consent to insulate themselves from an invasion of privacy claim every time they grab a model's photo from Facebook or Twitter and put on their site.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Gines-Perez case. Thanks again Latoicha.
Hi Indo: Thank you for your comments! Yes 50 cents Right to Privacy may be somewhat reduced when it pertains to publication of certain private facts about him. However, unlike government officers or officials who are true public figures and reasonably do not have much expectation of privacy, celebrities do have some expectation of privacy. Unlike government officials, the public is not putting their trust in celebrities to make decisions regarding issues that affect their lives. Thus we hold governmental officials to a higher standard and should have access to certain private facts about them which can affect their character and judgment.
The Right to Privacy protects the disclosure of private facts about a person or an invasion of their privacy. However, as discussed above, public figures have a reduced Right to Privacy.
The Right to Publicity is the right to use one's own image or likeness when it relates to commercial speech, i.e., a company uses the image to sell or endorse a product or service.
New York and California are two states that have very strict Right to Publicity statutes due to the fact most celebrities make their living in those states. Since 50 cents lives in New York, he will have the full protection of the law as it relates to a celebrity's right to use their own image. This is how they make their money.
50 cents does have multiple issues in this particular case. He can sue in New York state court or federal court. He has a copyright and trademark claim, which are federal issues. Plus he has the Right to Publicity Claim which is a state court issue.
I am looking forward to seeing how this all plays out.
Thanks again for your comments!
Nice article. It seems there would be overlapping concerns here re: the right of publicity and possibly copyright infringement for use of the photos. But isn't 50's right to privacy, as a public figure, somewhat reduced. Also, I've always been a little confused about the difference between the right of publicity and the right of privacy – I'm sure they'll both be on any complaint he files. Finally, not every state has a codified or even common law right to privacy, correct? I wonder how damages will be quantified in this case and whether 50 will sue in state or federal court.
No problem Lexi! Thank you for your comments!
Hi Latoicha,
Thank you for reporting on this. I hadn't heard about it.
I have also forwarded this post to my blogger friends.
Thank you once again!~LexiB.
You are most welcome! Thanks for commenting.
Hi Nukirk:
I am glad you found this article helpful. Yes, steer clear of using celebrity images unless reporting news. You are on the right track!
Thanks for this Article! It was excellent and particularly relevant for me since I do Social Media PR! Thanks for sharing! Keep it comin'!
Debra Dixon
Light of Gold PR
http://www.lightofgoldpr.com
Thanks for this info. For my blog (which is music and tech related) the only time I really use a celebrity image is if it's related to the story. During my earlier sketches, I did had celebrities within the image. My fellow artist advise me to stay clear of that and stick with stock images.
This will definitely be a reference book mark!