The commenters are missing the legal concept at work here. California's right of publicity statute (Civil Code 3344) prohibits the use of a person's name or likeness without their permission and the person can recover damages in the amount of profit that was earned as a result of that unauthorized use. The law doesn't deal with the issue of endorsement per se. That would be covered by a Lanham Act violation (i.e. false or misleading advertising). A person can be an unknown actor or model and if a company uses his/her image in an advertisement without permission, they will be liable. Obviously, when the person is a famous star, use of their image can lead consumers to believe that the star is endorsing their product. However, mistaken belief of endorsement is not an element of a Calif. Civil Code 3344 claim. Merely using the person's image in an advertisement without their permission creates liability.
In this case, Bullock has a legal claim under Civ. Code 3344 if Toy Watch used her name and/or likeness in advertising without her permission. Apparently they did not have her consent, so they were liable. Whether or not the statement that her character wore the watch in "Blind Side" is factual, is irrelevant to her cause of action.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by pp91303.
(untitled comment)
In this case, Bullock has a legal claim under Civ. Code 3344 if Toy Watch used her name and/or likeness in advertising without her permission. Apparently they did not have her consent, so they were liable. Whether or not the statement that her character wore the watch in "Blind Side" is factual, is irrelevant to her cause of action.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by pp91303.
Submit a story now.