Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights
from the might-want-to-rethink-that-one... dept
Lindsay Lohan is no stranger to questionable publicity rights claims. After all, she sued E*Trade, because the company had a commercial with a baby named Lindsay, who was described as a "milkaholic," and she insisted that this was meant to be a reference to her (something no one else actually thought). The latest is that Lindsay, who's facing time in jail for stealing a necklace, is apparently so upset that the jewelry store surveillance video of her stealing the necklace has been released, and shown on Entertainment Tonight, that she's threatening to sue the jewelry store where it was taken, suggesting it was an abuse of her publicity rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: lindsay lohan, publicity rights, surveillance tape, theft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
hahah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now if she tripped and fell, maybe we could tell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?!
And what's really amazing is that Lohan actually stole the damn thing and basically wants to make money off it.
What's next? This was a chance for her to stimulate the economy?
No, I got it. It was for a role in a movie. Classic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
Second, you have no right to privacy when you're in public. If you want to privately steal stuff (allegedly), do it in the privacy of your own home. Once you go out in public, everything you do is fair game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
ANYONE should be allowed to use publicity rights laws to hide their identities in public?
Your logic seems quite flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
How about other visitors stealing, though? Refer to Failblog and such for a whole bunch of those.
"Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?"
I know in the UK there are laws that make it illegal to hand over CCTV footage except in exceptional circumstances, but AFAIK there's no similar legislation in the US.
So, was it unethical to hand over the footage? I would say yes. Was it illegal? I'd say probably not. I think it's the same disparity between morality and legality that comes up in file-sharing discussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
No, not the imaginary property kind of criminal. The actual physical I-take-your-stuff-so-you-no-longer-have-it kind of criminal. And now she wants to cash in on publicity rights?
Let her rot in jail.
Do not pass go. Do not collect publicity rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
She was in public. That takes away the privacy part of this. In a public place, you can video tape anything you want. You may have a wire-tapping issue if there was sound recorded, but she has no expectation of privacy when she is in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
I would think that any tape showing someone shoplifting becomes more valuable, especially to the store.
Second, there might be a question of privacy. Was Ms Lohan made away that the tapes could be sold? Does it violate her privacy?
There is no expectation of privacy inside of any store for anyone, including celebrities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
It may be more valuable, but that is irrelevant. Public place, no expectation of privacy what so ever and she was not the creator of the work. The paparazzi's photos of Lohan are more valuable than their photos of Joe Nobody. So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
Careful, he's gonna be a lawyer someday and might try to sue you for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
Actually, there *are* some laws that do have famous person exceptions, including some publicity rights laws. Some of them have required that the person's likeness have commercial value to qualify. Also, some libel laws have different rules for famous people.
So, you should be careful there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
Is there is or is there ain't no pub rights laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
When I said "which publicity rights law" I did not mean that there were none. I meant that there are many. The commenter said "the" one, and I can't evaluate that claim because I don't know which one he means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!
Which publicity rights law? You say "the" as if there's one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But wow, she actually (allegedly) stole it (allegedly.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
speechless. ^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that I am defending her...but...
Just curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I am defending her...but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I am defending her...but...
No. That's exactly how the paparazzi make their livings.
Copyright is granted to the creator of the art, not the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I am defending her...but...
> *sold* the tape and made a huge profit
> on it. Wouldn't she have a right to some
> of that pie?
Nope. Not any more than she has a right to part of the money made from all the paparazzi photos taken of her as she walks in and of court and rehab and wherever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that I am defending her...but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonderful
Someone needs to end this nonsense now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonderful
I agree.
This whole "publicity rights" thing seems more and more like whiny people saying "Wahhhh, someone's doing a better job making money from my puplic image than I am, so they OWE me!!!!".
I mean really, if you want your public image to be pristine...DO NOT DO STUPID THINGS IN PUBLIC. Not a hard concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wonderful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonderful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wonderful
Neither or both. In other words, if there are legitimate publicity rights, then you would have to get permission from (or obscure the identity of) each of them before doing anything public with the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is good news here!
Sadly, no pole dancing. *snap*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is good news here!
Comment of the day, as far as I'm concerned....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
p.s. she's now forever "milkaholic" since SHE brought it up...
it never occurred to me to link Lindsay and "milkaholic" when that commercial aired...while the commercials where funny I never thought of Lindsay Lohan when that "milkaholic" commercial came on...
now everytime I see an E-trade commercial, E-trade pulled that "milkaholic" commercial off the air, all I can think about is that stupid milkaholic and her silly antics...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
But then again, I'm well aware that there are absolutely no accidents in a commercial, or on a magazine cover; basically anything that involves a publicist is never "an accident." These people agonize for days over fake names for fake characters in their fake commercials (as Charles Barkley has said of advertising spots: "They got a woman who makes sure the cheese on your taco looks right!") There's not a chance in hell that someone at the ad firm wasn't aware of the implication, even if the name was originally chosen because it was one of their children's names. Someone on their, or E*Trade's legal firm almost definitely advised against using the name for this reason, and I'm sure the marketing people chose not to worry about it. I'm not saying it's right, but this is what happens.
That being said, I still think Lindsay should have let it go. It's the price you pay for being a celebrity. It was basically equivalent to an SNL send-up. Brush that dirt off your shoulder and go buy a fancy necklace or somethin... wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?
Or better yet, cash in. See if she can get in on a Got Milk? ad campaign as a milkaholic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well....
Anyways, she wont (shouldnt, according to the law anyways) win this case. Here are the reasons:
If there are any laws about public recordings, they are moot here. This WAS NOT IN PUBLIC!!! This was a private business, free to videotape/record whatever it wants.
As such, the video is also private property, and unless it was evidence (not sure if there is a law about selling evidence). They are free to do what they please with it. Even MORE SO than paparazzi in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The store should just give her the necklaces as her part of the cut.
*shrug*
It's not like she's a *slips on sunglasses*
Milkaholic.
YYEAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Furthermore, if the store is going to make a case against Lindsay, isn't this video considered evidence? Why would they release evidence to the public before a trial? Wouldn't this interfere with her right to a fair trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about California's right of publicity law... you know, the state where the alleged theft occurred, where Lindsay lives, and where the recording was made?
Another post where no law is provided, and the facts presented in such a way so as to incite anger, fear and disgust in IP laws (publicity rights are a subset of unfair competition law). How about some analysis? Or is it easier to get everyone into a frenzy in the comments by not doing so? Hyperbole drives comments and views, right Mike?
Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to prove his or her deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs. California Civil Code Section 3344
In California, there is no requirement that the person's name or likeness be commercially valuable (although, Linday's obviously is).
Make up your own mind on whether she'll prevail... but at least read and try to understand the applicable laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services
They're not using the tape in advertisements for their jewelry store.
Furthermore, you missed an important part of the statute:
For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).
For reference, that statute is California Code Section 3344.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Practitioner's Guide to California Right of Publicity Law
I found Joplin Enterprises v. Allen quite interesting:
In Joplin, the District Court applied California's Section 990 to hold that a two-act biographical play about deceased vocalist Janis Joplin was not actionable.
This makes the whole "Jackie Jormp-Jomp" thing on 30 Rock even funnier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The thrust of my post was the vapid and conclusory nature of Mike's post. Reasonable minds can disagree, but only when they have the relevant facts. Glad to talk about the issues with you, though.
I disagree with you. The surveillance video is undoubtedly a "good" or "product" on or in which Lindsay's likeness is being used without her permission. This is precisely what publicity laws seeks to prevent. "The term 'right of publicity' has since come to signify the right of an individual, especially a public figure or a celebrity, to control the commercial value and exploitation of his name and picture or likeness and to prevent others from unfairly appropriating this value for their commercial benefit." Estate of Elvis Presley, 513 F. Supp. 1339.
And Lindsay isn't suing news outlets, she's suing the jewelry store that is exploiting Lindsay's notoriety for its own financial gain. Thus, the exception you cited doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You say "vapid," I say "common sense."
The surveillance video is undoubtedly a "good" or "product" on or in which Lindsay's likeness is being used without her permission.
As far as I know, they're not using the footage to promote the store at all, so I don't think there's a "product" there.
From what I can tell, she's angry that the footage is being released at all, even to news outlets. Whether money changes hands or not, that's certainly a "public affairs" matter, so the statute probably wouldn't apply. It might be different if it was "Lindsay Lohan's Girls Gone Wild" or something like that, but that's not what's going on here.
Assuming the store even sold the footage at all, which they deny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who said anything about promoting the store? They are (allegedly) promoting and selling a video, the good, which contains Lindsay's name or likeness. Period.
And the jewelry store is not a news outlet, and thus the exception does not apply. Not sure why you think the buyer matters. She's not suing the buyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The exception reads "For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a)." That doesn't say anything about who is using the likeness, only how it's used. So it looks to me like she'll have to prove the store sold the tape or she'll have no case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup. I figured you'd say that. That's what I wanted to make sure. You claimed "the" publicity rights law, but there are multiple ones. And California's does not apply here. I was waiting for you to make this claim to point that out, but others have. It's a newsworthy video. Thus, sorry, no publicity rights.
Thanks for playing, we'll catch you next time around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not the same AC, Mike. Thanks for playing.
It's a newsworthy video. Thus, sorry, no publicity rights.
The exception protects media outlets, not jewelry stores. Incidentally, whether there is a public interest in a use affects the requisite burden of proof required to prove a violation. It's not an absolute bar to a claim as you suggest. But expecting such a nuanced legal evaluation from TechDirt is unrealistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The exception reads "For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a)." That doesn't say anything about who is using the likeness, only how it's used. This use is clearly in connection with a news broadcast, so the exception would apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's great when a totally ignorant AC tries to mockingly explain the law to me, and then gets it wrong.
Sorry, the law makes no statement about media outlets. The law addresses the content, not the venue or the party. You lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but it does make a statement about use that is made "in connection with" a news broadcast or account. The jewelry store is selling the tape for its own financial gain, not using it in connection with a news broadcast or account. The fact that a media outlet purchases it and ultimately uses it in such a manner serves only to protect their specific use, not the jewelry store's. You can see why the purchaser's use is irrelevant to the seller's liability, right?
By the way Mike, it's nice that you're now debating the merits of a publicity claim under California's right of publicity statute (the actual law at issue). Based on my initial post, commentators have posted actual law, exceptions to the law, and some actual analysis. It's unfortunate that (a) you never posted any of this analysis in your article, and (b) that, each of your posts is full of snarky, immature comments (nothing new).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares about the theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares about the theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]