Quantcast

50 Cent Sues WorldStarHipHop For Unlawfully Using His Image. Bloggers Take Note!

by Latoicha Givens 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.


Category: Celeb 2.0, Experts, Featured | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
  • 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! :)
  • Latoicha
    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!
  • debradixon
    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
  • Latoicha
    You are most welcome! Thanks for commenting.
  • 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.
  • Latoicha
    No problem Lexi! Thank you 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.
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • 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
blog comments powered by Disqus
advertisement

Want It

Who's Talking

Powered by Disqus

The Goods

How-To's

Ex-Factor

advertisement