Brown v ACMI
From Personality Rights Database
Contents |
[edit] 1 Case Name: Brown v ACMI Pop Division
Key Words: right of publicity, unauthorised image use on website, copyright infringement
Court:Fourth Division
Country: US
Citation: 2007 WL 2214544 (Ill. App.)
Case No: 1-06-0870
Date: 2 August 2007
Importance: When possible that photos displayed on Internet Web pages can be interpreted as tangible, the Publicity Act as applied would not pre-empt copyrights.
[edit] 2 Facts
Singer and recording artist James Brown along with the New James Brown Enterprises, Inc. and Jesus Muhammad-Ali, filed a complaint against the Corbis Corporation which licenses copyrights for stock photographs and images, seeking damages and other reliefs in connection with Corbis' display of photographic images of James Brown on Corbis’ website. Corbis also appealed on some counts. Brown alleged that Corbis had infringed his right of publicity through its unauthorized commercial use of his image on the Internet. He also alleged that the sale of the photographs violated his right of publicity under common law and the Illinois Right of Publicity Act.
In the matter before the trial court, it was initially held by the trial court that Brown's right of publicity was “equivalent to one of the rights specified in section 106 of the Copyright Act and gives the copyright holder, Corbis, the sole right to distribute images of Brown.” However, subsequently, on 23 July 2004 on Brown's motion for reconsideration, the trial court totally reversed its initial holding. While recognising that it previously held that Corbis was exempt from liability for violating Brown's right of publicity as a "vehicle of information," it determined that it had previously erred in applying the law, and reasoned that the exception applied only if the images sold by Corbis were used for the purposes of the public interest or news dissemination. In view of the fact that Corbis sold pictures to different categories of customers, and not just the news media (private or commercial users), it was held that Brown's right of publicity was in issue. The trial court further held that Corbis might be liable either directly or indirectly of "turning a blind eye" to possible copyright infringements. Subsequently, on 17 September 2004, Corbis filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's order of 23 July 2004 and also moved to certify three questions of law for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308. The trial court denied Corbis' motion for reconsideration and certified two questions for this appeal.
[edit] 3 Decision and Reasoning
Certified questions
The first certified question was: “Whether the circuit court erred in denying Corbis' motion to dismiss counts III and VI under 735 ILCS 5/2-619 and in rejecting Corbis' argument that the undisputed facts show that Corbis did not use photographs of James Brown for an improper commercial purpose under either the Illinois common law or the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, 735 ILCS 1075/1, et seq.?” This question was answered in the negative. The reasoning behind this was that in the light of the submissions of the parties there remained a great difference of opinion in regards to the interpretation of the definition of what it was that Corbis sold, and what the legal effects of those sales were. The Court stated that the facts were not undisputed that the display of the photos of James Brown on Corbis’ website did not in some manner constitute an improper commercial use under the Illinois common law or the Publicity Act.
The second certified question was: Whether the circuit court erred in its July 23, 2004, order and memorandum opinion by holding that the U.S. Copyright Act does not pre-empt the claims asserted by Plaintiffs in counts III and VI of the amended complaint? This question was also answered in the negative. The Court opined that when it was possible that the photos displayed on an Internet Web page can be interpreted as tangible, the Publicity Act as applied would not pre-empt copyrights.
[edit] 4 Result
Held that, the trial court had not erred in the denial of Corbis' motion to dismiss counts III and VI of plaintiffs' complaint under the Publicity Act. Also held that, the United States Copyright Act did not pre-empt plaintiffs' claims. Order of the trial court affirmed and matter remanded for further proceedings.
