Talk:Personality rights/Archives/2013

(no header)
the Personality rights section germany is not complete. whether KUG §22 is quotet, also KUG §23 (http://bundesrecht.juris.de/kunsturhg/__23.htm) needs to be quoted which contains the exceptions! wondering whether there are also exceptions within others countries laws. --Michl 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thie new case about using a teen's image licensed under CC for a commercial ad campaign should be followed closely: Virgin sued for using teen's photo -- Túrelio 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Article needs citations / references, external links fix & more
This article has no secondary referencing, very limited primary referencing, and the majority of those external links that are listed are either dead, or take readers to pages which make no reference at all to 'personality rights'.

All above reduce the possible contribution this article makes, from being a crisp, reliable encyclopedia style summary of an very particular dimension of 'intellectual property law' .. into a largely uncertain and ambigious exposition (variously verifiable) iterpreting and categorising a bit of a grab bag of otherwise largely unrelated legal cases and laws relating to people's privacy, fraud (passing off), and commercial trade rights.

I hope it is agreed that this article could be improved, particularly given that 'personality rights' are one to the intellectual property rights 'disclaimed' in General disclaimer, and this is one of the few places that Wikipedia users can go to find out what it is they are being forewarned of in opting to use Wikipedia articles?!Bruceanthro (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

International
Australia, Canada, England, Hong Kong, Jamaica, and United States are in article, I am once again removing the "globalize/USA" tag. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The United States section is twice as large as the Australia section, which is focused on three specific court cases. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The PRC and England sections need to be expanded, and other examples would be welcome. But I think the US section is likely to remain the longest, simply because the variability of laws by state makes it more complex.  I don't think that one country having a longer entry in itself represents systemic bias, so long as the representation is proportional to the complexity and significance of the issues involved. Chick Bowen 04:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that the United States section is too large, I was comparing the size of the Australia and United States sections to point out the fact that Canada and England only had single paragraphs, Hong Kong and Jamaica only had single sentences and Australia, although larger than the others, lacked a general overview. As another example of how the article lacks a worldwide perspective, Asia has two sentences, while Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Eastern Europe aren't covered at all. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias of court cases in one area
Unless somebody can state why this section is biased (what other types of cases this applies to), this tag should be taken out. From the list of court cases, it seems that personality rights refer mostly to celebrities who do not want their image used for commercial advertising. I am going to guess that this has to do with the fact that if their image is used in a product it indirectly gives the impression that the celebrity supported that product / view. There would also be the issue of royalties.

For a general adult person, when an image is stated as being released for non-commercial use, they are giving permission to use the image (their likeness) in non-commercial use.

The only other group of people that I have heard that there is an issue with is children, which this article states nothing about. A child's image cannot be used for advertising without parental permission, because the child cannot sign a contract. I don't know if this is law or if it is considered good manners. I just know that for my child's school, I had to sign something giving the school permission to use my son's picture in advertising. This was at the beginning of the year, so it was no specific picture they were referring to. Zzmonty (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Overcoverage tag. (I first replaced the raw ambox that was for some reason substituted last September; if there's still disagreement on this, reversion should be to the correct template.)  I don't find it odd that the U.S. has more coverage here.  This is an area of state-level law, and the U.S. has 50+ jurisdictions.  It's not surprising that the U.S. section will be longer to account for that. TJRC (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Post mortem personality rights
I have just noticed that there was nothing in the article on post mortem personality rights. This was briefly discussed here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/04/post-mortem-publicity-rights-can-you.html. This link might be a good start to expand the article to cover this aspect. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also a comment on the situation in Argentina. --Edcolins (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Privacy (Personal and Home)
I am looking for a part that explains my right as a tentent. I have been confronted with the issue of be watched in my own studio. I live in the garage that has been made a studio. The section that leads to the house that is part of the laundry room is sealed with a wall, but where I am watched at is through the air conditioning vents and the second half of the garge that isn't a part of my studio. I just would like to know if there is a part of the Law that protecs me from this type of torment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.151.49 (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're asking in the wrong place, Wikipedia is not a forum. Try some other website like WikiAnswers or Yahoo! Answers, and mention your jurisdiction, as different jurisdictions have different privacy laws and tenant rights laws. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be under the title "right of publicity?"
My understanding is that "right of publicity" is the more common term in English. See WP:COMMONNAME. Isn't "personality rights" a translation of a civil law term? --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems to me that "right of publicity" is more appropriate as it's the most common term in U.S. law, and because of the overwhelming strength of the U.S. entertainment industry, U.S. courts have taken the lead on exploring the scope of this right. I'm planning to rename this article soon.  Any objections?  --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another point. Some editor (probably a teenager or child) has repeatedly inserted the capitalized version "Right of Publicity" throughout the article, which is both technically incorrect (no lawyer writes it that way) and also violates Wikipedia's Manual of Style.  I'm going to fix that as well. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the article begins, 'Personality rights is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity"', it seems to me that the article should indeed be called 'Right of publicity', with 'Personality rights' as a redirect. Dricherby (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Celebrities, Not Average Joe?
I'm not a lawyer but it's my understandng that these rights, at least in the U.S., apply only to those persons whose likeness is recognizable such as entertainers, athletes, politicians and other celebrities. It's also my understanding that the average Joe whose likeness is not recognizable does not have an interest in his/her likeness or rights to same. If this is the case, I think the distinction is important to include in the article. Len Ellis (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Len Ellis


 * I'm not a lawyer, either, or an American but here goes anyway... :-) My understanding is that it applies to everybody and this is one of the reasons for needing the subject's permission to use a photograph in advertising and for other commercial purposes.  Suppose, for example, that a local soft drinks company snapped some photos of you drinking their product, without your permission but perfectly legally.  Suppose, further that they used these photos in their ads under the caption 'Average Joe loves JuicyCo'.  That would create an association between your face and their product, which you have the right to control.  Note that, even if the statement was not true (maybe you were only drinking their juice because the store sold out of your favourite brand), it wouldn't be libellous unless you could somehow show that it was damaging to your reputation.  So a different mechanism of protection is needed.  Now imagine that Coca Cola used you without permission in a world-wide 'Average Joe drinks Coke' campaign.  There's a good chance that this would make you a celebrity and cause significant disruption to your life but the principle is the same.  The law is mainly applied to celebrites because their rights are more likely to be infringed and because they have the resources to sue when they are; but I believe it applies to everybody. Dricherby (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

does California law (or any of the 12 states) protect the personality rights of dead foreigners?
Does California law (or any of the 12 states) protect the personality rights of dead foreigners?

The article uses the term 'individual' without defining it. Does this mean, for example, that Frida Kahlo's Personality rights are protected in California? But, not in the 38 states without Personality rights laws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.157.27 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The top map has 3 colors, but only 2 explained in the legend/caption
The top map has 3 colors, but only 2 explained in the legend/caption. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Added colors to legend, got them from the image file. North8000 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rights of publicity and the 1st amendment
This article mentions that the 1st amendment limits one's right of publicity in the U.S. but does not explain how. I think we should explain situations where the right is would be limited either by specific exemptons in the law, court precedent, or where it is is thought by constitutional lawyers that the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of a defendant on 1st amendment grounds. --Cab88 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? That is already addressed in the article.  Notice the discussion of Jim Brown and Tiger Woods. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Teenage mutant ninja turtles?
Why is teenage mutant ninja turtles brought up on the english section?? I'm guessing it's vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.228.3 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. What's the relevance of fictional characters to personality rights? How can a fictional character have rights (property notions notwithstanding)? This needs explicit, cited explanation, or removal.--greenrd (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Teenage mutant ninja turtles?
Why is teenage mutant ninja turtles brought up on the english section?? I'm guessing it's vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.228.3 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. What's the relevance of fictional characters to personality rights? How can a fictional character have rights (property notions notwithstanding)? This needs explicit, cited explanation, or removal.--greenrd (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)