Also known as: name and likeness · likeness or name · right of publicity · publicity rights · misappropriation
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An invasion of privacy tort committed when one appropriates the name or likeness of another for his own use or benefit. Liability arises without regard to whether the appropriation causes reputational harm or invades seclusion.
Nancy Nelson performed in a local dance production. South Gallery later used her name and rehearsal photographs in advertisements for unrelated master classes without her consent. The advertisements generated ticket sales for the gallery. Nancy may recover for appropriation of her name and likeness.
Nestor Navarro wrote a memoir. A Florida publisher printed and sold copies using Nestor's name and the details of his life story on the cover without permission. The publisher profited from the sales. Nestor holds a property right in the commercial use of his identity and may sue for misappropriation.
Nia Nkosi maintained an account at Norton Bank. The bank placed her photograph and name on billboards promoting new accounts without obtaining consent. The campaign increased the bank's deposits. Nia may recover damages for the appropriation of her likeness.
Norman Nash retained counsel who learned of serious misconduct by another attorney. The lawyer later featured Norman's name and likeness in firm marketing materials describing the representation without authorization. Norman objects to the commercial use. The appropriation claim proceeds independently of any reporting obligations.
Natalie Norris entrusted funds to her attorney. After discovering misuse of the funds, the firm continued to display Natalie's name and photograph on its website to attract clients. Natalie had not consented to the ongoing commercial display. The appropriation of her likeness supports a separate privacy claim.
Nikhil Narayan performed a brief human cannonball act. Cox Broadcasting filmed and aired the entire performance without consent. The broadcast appropriated the economic value of Nikhil's act. Nikhil may pursue a state right-of-publicity claim.
In August 1971, appellee Cohn's 17-year-old daughter was raped and murdered in Georgia. Six youths were indicted for murder and rape. Although there was substantial press coverage of the crime and of subsequent developments, the identity of the victim was not disclosed pending trial, perhaps because of Ga. Code Ann. § 26-9901 (1972). In April 1972, during court proceedings in which five defendants entered guilty pleas, reporter Wassell for petitioner Cox Broadcasting Corporation examined the indictments made available in the courtroom. Wassell obtained the victim's name from those public records and broadcast it on WSB-TV that day and again the following day. In May 1972, Cohn filed suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County against Cox Broadcasting and Wassell. The complaint alleged invasion of privacy arising from the television broadcasts that named his deceased daughter and sought money damages. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cohn on the issue of liability. The Georgia Supreme Court initially held that the complaint stated a common-law claim for public disclosure. On rehearing the court sustained the constitutionality of the state statute prohibiting publication of a rape victim's name. The United States Supreme Court postponed decision on jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits and reviewed the case after the Georgia Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenge to liability.
View caseThe plaintiff must show that the defendant appropriated the plaintiff's name or likeness for the defendant's own use or benefit. The Restatement imposes liability once those facts are established, without requiring proof of reputational harm or highly offensive conduct.
No. The cause of action protects any living individual whose name or likeness is appropriated. The Restatement limits privacy actions to living persons but does not impose a public-figure requirement for the appropriation branch.
No. The action may be maintained only by a living individual. Corporations and other entities lack standing under the privacy tort.
The First Amendment does not categorically bar recovery when a broadcaster appropriates the entire performance of an entertainer without consent. States may compensate the performer for the economic value taken.
…Co. , 433 U. S. 562 (1977) (ruling that the “actual malice” standard does not apply to the tort of appropriation of a right of publicity). In respondent’s view, and in the view of the Court of Appeals, so long as the utterance was intended to inflict emotional distress, was outrageous, and did in fact inflict serious…