Celebrity and Personal Image - Essay Example

Celebrity and Personal Image Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date The media has become important and has played unique role within the economy and also bringing together public opinion. The media comes in different forms ranging from Internet to newspapers and therefore, it is impossible to understand a world without media. Since media has become an important organ in human life, it is important to pass legislations that address the concerns of individuals, organizations and other organs that are important in ensuring the world operates effectively. Such laws may include Intellectual Property Laws which aims to address the media since it operates in intangible form. The aim of intellectual property laws are aimed in ensuring individual and person rights are observed. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to discuss property rights to an individual or personal image through a perspective of a celebrity. Celebrity is essential and it is mostly sought by many since they view it as honour. Celebrity is associated with numerous factors including social, politics and economic benefits. The persons accorded celebrity is conferred by the public and therefore institutions aiming to benefit from the celebrity image should acknowledge owners of the rights. However, some individuals and organisations utilise celebrity credentials with intent of causing harm. Celebrity brings into consideration personal rights that should be observed. Individual’s personality is an aspect utilised in defining an individual and identifies the position of the individual in the society. An individual personality defines how the society should treat the person and the individuality is based on individual talents. Therefore, celebrities have personal rights that should be respected and upheld. Celebrities have unique and popular image in which the society tends to be associated with and the society tend to personalise the image and the society continues to follow the celebrities personalities ranging from their clothing, places they visit to the type of cosmetics utilised. Since celebrities have personal lives that should be protected due to occurrences of humiliation and embarrassment, most of celebrities concerns have sought judicial directives. Barber vs. Times Inc is an example of privacy right issue whereby a photographer took pictures of Barber while giving birth1. Dorothy Barber filed a suit resulting in compensation of US$ 3000 for invasion of privacy. The outcome of the case indicates the importance of championing privacy. The privacy act is associated with Human Rights Act as stipulated by United Kingdom legislation and should be interpreted relative to European Convention on Human Rights2. According to the legislation and especial article 8, it states that every individual has the right for family and private life respect3. Celebrities have families and private requirements and should be protected as depicted by Theakston v. MGN [2002] All ER (D) 1824. Theakston was a TV presenter who had been photographed participating in brothel antics. The court restrained publication of the photographs but the court refused restraining of verbal depiction of the issue. This means privacy aspirations differs in that it is wrong to take pictures of footballers children but it is alright to take pictures of the father of the children’s while playing football. Hence, in deliberating on privacy issues, it is paramount to understand the context and content of the issue. Publicity right can be defined as utilisation of a celebrity fame and name with the aim of gaining economic value. Someone or organisations may associate fame with a certain merchandise resulting economic benefit. Sometimes, unfair trade practice occurs whereby an individual or organisation do not request for permission. For example, Sourav Ganguly v. Tata Tea Ltd. wherein Ganguly had become popular in India because of sports event resulting in Tata Tea Ltd packaging a 1 kilo tea with a postcard, in which the company requested the consumers to congratulate Ganguly. Ganguly won the case since Tata Tea Ltd promoted the product with the aim of gaining economic benefit. The case of Irvine v Talksport is another example that addresses the concept of publicity rights5. Edmund Irvine was a successful Formula One driver and one of his images was utilised in advertising a radio station. The court ruled that Irvine had the right to compensation because his image had goodwill and hence was entitled to compensation. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting brings into consideration public rights6. Zacchini objected to airing of his entire 15 second performance during local news because he argued the value of the video was to be achieved through public paying to witness the event. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting argued through First and Fourteenth Amendment defences and the Supreme Court concluded that the company should compensate the performer7. This was attributed to the economic incentive associated with production of the performance. The right of publicity has seen numerous organisations compensating individuals because of their decisions of utilisation of “impersonator”. The two major cases include Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc [1992]8 and Midler v Ford Motor Co. [1989]9, whereby Waits and Midler refused to utilise their distinctive voices in fulfilling the requirements of the manufacturers. In both situations, the manufacturers found sound alike performers who duplicated their vocals of both performers. Waits and Midler prevailed and were compensated financially respectively. In the same impersonator case as Midler and Waits, White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [1992]10, White was compensated financially. Samsung had employed a robot, which looked line White and therefore, usage of a robot infringed her right because of the popularity and image of White. Moreover, the publicity rights do not extent beyond the death of the specific celebrity. It does mean that if a celebrity passes on, the issue of publicity to their rights ends. This can be analysed from the perspective of Princess Diana’s estate v Franklin Mint [1998] wherein Franklin had sold products that beared images of Princess Diana likeness11. Two jurisdictions and judgments were passed whereby U.S. District Court in Los Angeles found Franklin guilty while District Court in California found out Franklin was not guilty and the entire case was settled outside the court. In the same perspective, Shaw Family Archives Ltd. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc., 486 F.Supp.2d 309 (S.D.N.Y., 2007)12 ruled that there are no laws or rules which prevented individuals or organisations from benefiting from the name of Marilyn Monroe (the celebrity in which Shaw Family was suing for), her voice or her image. These two cases illustrate if there are no legislations and other directives, managers of an estate or next of kin have no right to pursue for compensation or litigations. In conclusion, celebrity is an aspect which is respected and it is important to consider the impact of any human approach towards different circumstances of the celebrity. Sometimes it is alright to take photographs and utilise information regarding a celebrity but in other times, such approach may result in judicial proceedings. Generally, it is important to protect the rights of celebrities provided the protection does not cause harm to the individual or prevents the public from accessing appropriate and applicable information regarding the celebrity. References American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota. US Constitution, First and Fourteenth Amendments. 19 July 2013. http://www.aclusd.org/us-constitution-first-and-fourteenth-amendments.html Barber v. Time, Inc.. 348 Mo. 1199, 159S.W.2d291 (1942). Boochever, Circuit Judge. TOM WAITS v. FRITO-LAY, INC. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 5 August, 1992, 19 July 2013, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/waits.html Cases of Interest, White v Samsung Electronics America, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, 1992 971 F.2d 1395, 19 July 2013, http://www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/White+v+Samsung+Electronics+America,+Inc. Council of Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights: Article 8. Available http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art8 Diana Princes Wales, et al v. Franklin Mint Co, et al, case no. 2:98-cv-03847-FMC-BQR, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 19 July 2013, http://www.law360.com/articles/3730/appeals-court-rejects-franklin-mint-princess-diana-settlement Noonan, John, Circuit Judge, Bette Midler, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ford Motor Company, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 22 June 1988, https://www2.bc.edu/~yen/Torts/Midler.pdf Shaw Family Archives Ltd. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc., 486 F.Supp.2d 309 (S.D.N.Y., 2007) ruled on May 7, 2007, http://rightofpublicity.com/pdf/cases/monroe.pdf Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Irvine & Ors and TalkSport Ltd. Available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/423.html Theakston v MGN Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 182 (Feb) ZACCHINI v. SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING CO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 27 June 2013. Available at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_57 Read More