Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis v Christian Dior
From Personality Rights Database
|
| United States |
Contents |
[edit] 1 Onassis v Christian Dior
Case Name: Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis v Christian Dior - New York Inc and others
Key Words: Look-alike, misappropriation, interpretation of § 50 of NY statute
Country: US, New York state
Citation:
Date: 11.01.1984
Case N°:
Importance: Use of look-alike of a well-known personality is a violation of privacy
Facts: In a promotional campaign, Christian Dior-NY Inc issued a series of pictures featuring a trio known as “the Diors”. They were meant to be seen as rich, decadent, sophisticated and “aggressively chic”. The 16 different pictures showed them in various situations, like the marriage of two, birth of a baby, or their ascent to Heaven and had received widespread circulation. The challenged ad is the wedding one: it pictured the happy trio and their relatives and friends and read “the wedding of the Diors was everything a wedding should be (…) Just a legendary private affairs”. What made it legendary was the presence of some real TV or movies personalities, but above all a secretary bearing a striking resemblance with the plaintiff. It caused her to be identified with the ad to which she had given no consent.
She used to make it clear that she did not want her name or picture to be used in connection with the promotion of any commercial product. She sued Christian Dior-NY, the photographer, the look-alike model and the specialised agency who had come up with the model, for a preliminary injunction against the distribution of the ad and for associated relief.
[edit] 2 Decision and Reasoning
Greenfield J put the matter in the following terms: can someone enjoin the use of someone else’s face?
[edit] 2.1 How to interpret the law?
§§ 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law only refer to the unconsented use of someone’s “name, portrait or picture”. If the violation is established, then an absolute right to injunction may be obtained, regardless of the relative damage to the parties. But neither the plaintiff’s name nor her own picture appeared in the advertisement. The crucial point is therefore how to interpret the words “portrait or picture”.
Referring to case-law, the judge chose a broad interpretation: it was intended to protect the essence of a person and his/her identity against misappropriation from others for commercial purposes. The words “portrait or picture” gave a wider scope and included any representation, even the picture of another, insofar as this picture did -or was intended to- convey the idea that it was the plaintiff. Because a person may be known by many ways and characteristics, a narrow interpretation of the statute would enable to evade from it quite easily. The fact that there are some points of difference as well as points of resemblance does not matter, so long as the overall impression allows instant recognition.
[edit] 2.2 Collateral conclusions
Incidentally, the judge demonstrated that first, there was no need to have both name and picture appearing on the advertising. Secondly, the statute could not be too much extended and did not include voice or sound arrangements.
[edit] 2.3 Can a person be prevented from using her own face?
The model had claimed that she could not be prevented from using her own face. However, referring to the fact that the use of one’s own name could be restrained, the judge held that if such use was made in a way as to be deceptive or to promote confusion, then that use can be prevented. In the present case, it was not the presence of the model, but her resemblance with the plaintiff that made the event “legendary”. Moreover, the fact that real-life figures took part of the scene accentuated the overall misleading impression of authenticity.
Furthermore, the judge distinguished between painting a portrait of the plaintiff and merely looking like her. The former was a form of art, the second was not. Therefore, the model could not argue that her artistic career would be impeded by such prevention. She could use her resemblance for TV appearances or dramatic works, but not in commercial advertisements.
[edit] 2.4 The limits of the freedom of speech
The defendants tried to argue that the use of the look-alike was a “touch of humour” and was protected as free speech. However, the judge distinguished between promulgation of ideas and sale of goods. Because the plaintiff was a public figure, she may be a subject for comments or caricatures, but not a subject for commercial exploitation.
[edit] 2.5 Result
The plaintiff’s identity was impermissibly misappropriated for the purposes of trade and the fact that the picture which established that identity was genuine or counterfeit was irrelevant. The plaintiff obtained an injunction against further publication but could not get all the prints and negatives.
Because the violation of her right to privacy was enough for the granting of injunctive relief, the right of publicity was not considered at this point.
| List of States |
|---|
|
Argentina · Australia · Canada · France · Germany · Mexico · South Africa · Spain · United Kingdom · United States |
| United States | ||
|---|---|---|
| Federal | US Federal law | |
| States | Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming | |
