Tag: Copyright Preemption

8th Circuit Appears Divided in Dryer v. NFL Oral Arguments

The oral arguments from last Thursday’s hearing before the 8th Circuit in Dryer highlight a host of flashpoints in right of publicity law. The arguments focused on whether the use of historical film clips constituted commercial speech.  The plaintiffs’ attorney claimed that the use by the NFL was clearly commercial speech and therefore not entitled...
Continue reading

Student-Athletes File Appeal in Marshall v. ESPN

The student-athlete plaintiffs in Marshall have filed their opening brief in their appeal to the Sixth Circuit.  The Tennessee district court had earlier rejected the claim that television broadcasts of collegiate games violated the players’ rights of publicity under Tennessee law.  The brief contends that the district court erred by excluding the sports broadcasts from...
Continue reading

Aretha Franklin Gets Documentary Film Pulled from Film Festivals

A lawsuit filed by famous recording artist, Aretha Franklin, against a documentary filmmaker, Allan Elliott, led to the pulling of his documentary film, “Amazing Grace,” from the line-ups at numerous prestigious film festivals, including Telluride and Toronto.  Ms. Franklin claims that the film violated her right of publicity by using some concert footage of her...
Continue reading

Student-Athletes Lose Right of Publicity Claim for Licensed Use of NCAA Photographs

On March 6, 2015, a district court in California held that the student-athletes claims against T3Media for its Paya.com website were preempted by copyright law.  The NCAA gaver T3Media permission to display and sell photographs of NCAA athletes.  In an opinion that only adds to the confusion over how to assess when right of publicity...
Continue reading

Federal Court in Tennessee rejects student-athletes’ right of publicity claim against ESPN for game broadcasts

In June of 2015, a district court in Tennessee rejected a class action claim by student-athletes that their rights of publicity were being violated by the broadcast of collegiate games.  The court held that the use of their names and likenesses in the context of the broadcasts was outside the scope of the statutory right...
Continue reading