Kentucky
Kentucky has a right of publicity statute that includes a fifty-year postmortem right for “public figures.” It is not clear to what extent the statute supplants the state’s recognition of an independent common law right of publicity or the privacy-based tort of appropriation.
Statute
YES
RELATED LAWS:
In 2022, the state added a provision addressing student-athletes’ name, image, and likeness rights and allowing such athletes to “receive compensation” for agreements involving uses of NIL. Ky. Rev. Stat. 164.6945. The statute prohibits, among other things, compensation used to recruit athletes and restricts athletes agreeing to endorse illegal products.
In 2018, Kentucky adopted a criminal law prohibiting the “distribution of sexually explicit images without consent.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 531.120. This statute is violated when a person “intentionally distributes . . . erotic matter without the written consent of the person depicted, and does so with the intent to profit, or to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted.” This adds to its criminal prohibition on “Voyeurism” which restricts unauthorized recording or filming of intimate parts of a person’s body. Ky. Rev. Stat. § § 531.090 & 531.100.
Common Law - Right of Publicity
LIKELY YES
The Kentucky Supreme Court has expressly indicated that it is an open question whether the statute subsumes the common law right of publicity or the privacy-based tort of appropriation. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 60 S.W.3d 524 (Ky. 2001). Several federal courts, however, have concluded that common law rights remain, and indicated that the state recognizes all four privacy torts. Thornton v. W. & S. Fin. Grp. Beneflex Plan, 797 F. Supp. 2d 796 (W.D. Ky. 2011); see also International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 651 v. Philbeck, 464 F. Supp. 3d 863 (E.D. Ky. 2020); McKenzie v. Allconnect, Inc., 369 F. Supp.3d 810 (E.D. Ky. 2019).
Common Law - Right of Privacy-Appropriation Tort
LIKELY YES
Prior to the adoption of the Kentucky statute in 1984, Kentucky courts had long recognized the right of privacy and the action for the misappropriation of one’s name or likeness. Courts seem divided on whether the action remains after the statute and also whether the appropriation-based tort is substantively distinct from the right of publicity, but the dominant trend appears to be to view them as the same
McCall v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981)
Foster-Milburn Co. v. Chinn, 120 S.W. 364 (Ky. Ct. App. 1909)
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 651 v. Philbeck, 464 F. Supp. 3d 863 (E.D. Ky. 2020)
Thornton v. W. & S. Fin. Grp. Beneflex Plan, 797 F. Supp. 2d 796 (W.D. Ky. 2011)
Cheatham v. Paisano Publ’ns, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 381 (W.D. Ky. 1995)
Post-Mortem Right
YES – 50 years for “public figures”
Limits on Right
Does the law require the plaintiff or identity-holder to be a celebrity or have a commercially valuable identity?
UNCLEAR
The inter vivos aspect of the statute does not seem to require commercial value, however, some decisions have suggested that it does require a demonstration of commercial value. The postmortem right requires that an identity-holder have been a “public figure” before death, but it is not clear whether one needs to demonstrate “commercial value” as well.
Montgomery v. Montgomery, 60 S.W.3d 524 (Ky. 2001)
Foster-Milburn Co. v. Chinn., 120 S.W. 364 (Ky. Ct. App. 1909)
Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2000)
Thornton v. W. & S. Fin. Grp. Beneflex Plan, 797 F. Supp. 2d 796 (W.D. Ky. 2011)
Cheatham v. Paisano Publ’ns, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 381 (W.D. Ky. 1995)
Does the law protect persona?
UNCLEAR
Although the Kentucky right of publicity statute specifically refers to protection only for “name and likeness,” it defines the right of publicity more broadly as a “right of protection from appropriation of some element of an individual’s personality.” At least one federal case, has interpreted the right of publicity’s scope broadly. Of particular note and unusually in this area of the law, it seems one may not need to be human to bring such a claim in Kentucky. A federal district court in Kentucky applied the common law right of privacy/publicity to a union’s name and identity without requiring the claim to be brought by a natural (human) person. See Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 651 v. Philbeck, 464 F. Supp. 3d 863 (E.D. Ky. 2020).
Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2000)
Is Liability Limited to Uses on Commercial Advertising or Commercial Speech?
NO
The Kentucky right of publicity statute requires that a use be for “commercial exploitation” and that a postmortem use be for “commercial profit”, but does not specifically limit liability commercial speech. The Kentucky Supreme Court has suggested that the statute may apply even in the context of expressive works, but has suggested that most uses in noncommercial speech will be protected by the First Amendment. The common law right of publicity tort – if it exists– may be limited to uses for “commercial exploitation,” but the common law tort of misappropriation may not be.
Montgomery v. Montgomery, 60 S.W.3d 524 (Ky. 2001)
Thornton v. W. & S. Fin. Grp. Beneflex Plan, 797 F. Supp. 2d 796 (W.D. Ky. 2011)
Cheatham v. Paisano Publ’ns, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 381 (W.D. Ky. 1995)
First Amendment Analysis
Kentucky has adopted a relatedness test for determining whether the First Amendment protects uses of a person’s identity, at least in the context of expressive works. This test considers if the use was related to the purpose of the underlying expressive work or instead was a “disguised commercial advertisement for the sale of goods or services.” The Sixth Circuit, in which Kentucky sits, has also adopted this test and considered and applied a variety of other tests as well.
Montgomery v. Montgomery, 60 S.W.3d 524 (Ky. 2001)
Parks v. LaFace Records, 329 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2003) (applying relatedness test to Michigan right of publicity claim)
ETW Corp. v. Jireh Pub., Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003) (applying relatedness, transformativeness, and general balancing tests to Ohio right of publicity claim)
Page Updated as of April 18, 2024