Perfect 10 v Talisman Communications
From Personality Rights Database
|
| United States |
Contents |
[edit] 1 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Talisman Communications Inc.
Case Name: Perfect 10, Inc. v. Talisman Communications Inc.
Key words: unauthorised use of photographs, misuse of image likeness, damages
Country: USA
Citation: 2000 WL 364813, *1 (C.D.Cal.)
Court: United States District Court, C.D. California.
Date: 27 March 2000.
Case N°: No. CV99-10450 RAP MCX.
Importance: The right of publicity is violated when an entity uses appropriated photographs/names for the purpose of advertising and soliciting purchases of its goods and services, specifically the further sale of photographs and other works on its website.
Facts: Perfect 10 was engaged in the design, layout, filming, production, marketing and promotion of its products including the magazine, its website, photographs, video productions, and other arts, and is the copyright owner of those works. Some of the copyrighted works appear within its published magazine Perfect 10 (R). The defendant Talisman operated a website located at the Internet address <supersex.com>, of which it was the registrant and owner. Around September 1999, Talisman copied Perfect 10’s copyrighted works, and published those works on the <supersex.com> website, without authorization or permission from Perfect 10. Six of Perfect 10’s copyrighted photographs (of four models), covered by three separate United States copyright registrations, were taken and publicly displayed at <supersex.com>. The photographs of three of the models, as posted on Defendant’s website, also contained the models names. Users of the <supersex.com> website could obtain the mentioned copyrighted works owned by Perfect 10 as well as copy them without the permission or authorization of Perfect 10. The appropriation of the models likenesses and names by Talisman was for the purpose of advertising and soliciting purchases of Talisman’s goods and services, specifically the further sale of photographs and other works on Talisman’s Internet website.
[edit] 2 Decision and Reasoning
[edit] 2.1 Copyright Infringement
By reproducing, copying, publicly displaying, and distributing Perfect 10’s copyrighted works without Perfect 10’s authorization, in violation of Sections 106 and 501 of the Copyright Act, Talisman infringed Perfect 10’s registered copyrights. Moreover, Talisman had knowingly induced, caused, materially contributed, and provided the means for its customers to infringe Perfect 10’s copyrights, by providing a means for others to copy the aforementioned copyrighted works without authorization. (Paras 21, 22)
[edit] 2.2 Right of Publicity
The models depicted in the photographs had assigned and transferred their rights of publicity, as to their likenesses and names, to Perfect 10. By posting the pictures of these models on its website, along with the names of the models (in the case of V Kolek, A Degenford, and V Norris), Talisman had violated the models’ Rights of Publicity, both statutory (California Civil Code § 3344) and common law, which had been assigned to Perfect 10.
The defendant’s conduct involved the appropriation of photographs of the Plaintiff’s assignors( the models), and the Plaintiff’s assignors were readily identifiable in the photographs, in that any person viewing the photographs with the naked eye could reasonably determine that the persons depicted in the photographs were the Plaintiff’s assignors. The Defendant had also appropriated the names of the models, which rights had been assigned to Perfect 10. The appropriation by Defendant was for the purpose of advertising and soliciting purchases of Defendant’s goods and services, specifically the further sale of photographs and other works on Defendant’s Internet website, and for the purpose of selling the appropriated photographs through paid subscriptions to restricted areas of the Defendant’s website. All of the Defendant’s acts were performed without the permission, license or consent of Perfect 10. (Para 25)
[edit] 2.3 Result
Perfect 10, Inc. granted judgment against Defendant to the sum of $312,810.00.
| 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 | |
