Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

Apologies for the horrible <em>Star Wars</em> puns, but such are the times. A more salient headline probably would have been, "Freedom of Speech Outweighs Rosa Parks' Publicity Rights."

core/paragraph

This <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510880.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">case</a> has been broadly covered by the legal blogosphere, but it's too central to my practice area not to discuss here. I have long been developing a niche in Michigan right of publicity law, and updates to it do not come often--let alone from the Alabama courts. Yet that's exactly what happened here.

At issue are Rosa Parks' publicity rights, and Target's sale of various memorabilia about the civil rights icon. Specifically, Target sold a series of books, a made-for-TV movie, and the decorative plaque pictured here. Parks' estate sued, claiming a violation of its exclusive right to license the commercial use of Parks' name and likeness.

The Alabama trial court dismissed the complaint, and, in a unanimous January 4, 2016 <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510880.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">decision</a>, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed.

The relatively brief opinion was premised on only one ground: freedom of speech. Specifically, the qualified privilege to speak on matters of public importance that derives from both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (although the court did not reach this ground) and the Michigan Constitution (which it did stress). Indeed, as the court observed and several cases in my own career have verified,&nbsp;this "privilege to report on matters in the public interest is deeply&nbsp;rooted in Michigan jurisprudence.”

Based on this deep and abiding respect for free speech, Michigan courts have frequently rejected attempts to use the right of publicity to squelch expression on matters of public importance.&nbsp;For example, courts interpreting Michigan's common law right of publicity have found that the newsworthiness exception applies in the following situations:

core/list

In light of this well-settled law--unless I'm missing some key facts not evident in the court's opinion--this complaint was ridiculous to begin with, at least&nbsp;as applied to the books and the movie. It has never been the case that an author has had to pay a historical figure for the privilege of discussing her, whether that discussion takes place in a journalistic or fictionalized format, and whether&nbsp;in print or film.

The only colorable claim in the complaint was as to the plaque, and that's only because its function as "commentary" is not as immediately obvious. Nevertheless, the court had no problem concluding that "the plaque depicts images and mentions dates and statements related to Parks and the Civil Rights Movement, in an effort to convey a message concerning Parks, her courage, and the results of her strength."And it certainly does that. It also helps that the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit--which hears appeals from Michigan federal courts--has previously <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1158418.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">upheld </a>a similar defense made by an artist who created <a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2002/07/08/tiger_1.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">this </a>composite painting celebrating&nbsp;Tiger Woods.

That's not to say that all allegedly artistic uses of a celebrity's name and likeness are fair game, as Ms. Parks herself proved in a <a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0137p-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">decision </a>by the very same 6th Circuit that penalized the band Outkast for using her name as the title of one of their songs. But this latest decision is an important and--given that the US Supreme Court is currently <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/04/the-first-amendment-the-right-of-publicity-video-games-and-the-supreme-court/?postshare=7871452024383741&amp;tid=ss_tw-bottom" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">considering&nbsp;</a>whether to revisit the line between the First Amendment and publicity rights--timely reminder that this state-law tort cannot rightly be used to minimize anyone's&nbsp;freedom&nbsp;to say what they will on matters of public importance, even if they do so in&nbsp;commentary that they offer for sale.

Augmented Legality

Emerging Media and Technologies

Partner

Brian D. Wassom

Information Technology Transactions

Rosa Parks' Legal Force Awakens, But Her Likeness Will Stay at Target

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

Rosa Parks' Legal Force Awakens, But Her Likeness Will Stay at Target

professionals