Unwilling Spokespeople: Using Celebrity Images for Commercial Gain
Times Square is quite possibly the Mecca of billboard advertising. Scrolling text, enormous video screens, and a steaming cup of Ramen noodles compete for attention in this New York City landmark. The new kid on the block is from Weatherproof, an outerwear company. It shows President Obama wearing a Weatherproof jacket during a trip to China a few months back:
Photo: New York Post/AP
According to the New York Post article, "Weatherproof did not seek permission from the White House, nor does it believe it was necessary to do so since the billboard does not say Obama endorses the product." That's not exactly true. (Comically, the company also says "We did this in good faith. This is an image that we thought would enhance the president of the United States." One has to believe that they're referring to their quality Photoshop work.)
The question of legality, White House policy and why New York Times wouldn't run this article but an outdoor ad company would comes down to something called the "Right of Publicity". According to the World Intellectural Property Organization, the Right of Publicity "recognizes that a person’s image has economic value that is presumed to be the result of the person’s own effort and it gives to each person the right to exploit their own image...every person, regardless of how famous, has a right to prevent unauthorized use of their name or image for commercial purposes."
Therefore, anyone, whether it be a celebrity, person on the street or President Obama, has the right to prevent their image from being used in any way "that implies an individual's endorsement of a product, provided that the public can identify the individual based upon the use." (Source)
This trend of using the President's, or anyone's, for that mattter, image for commercial gain without permission has to stop. Implied endorsement, particularly by a public figure, imposes on an individual's right to publicity - a fact that should be known by advertisers, corporations and the Associated Press (who sold the image).
What do you think? Does a public offical or celebrity have the inherent right to refuse to have their image used for another entity's commercial gain?
(Thanks to @LaurieShook for the heads up on the Occidental story!)
