{"id":497,"date":"2016-02-21T21:19:00","date_gmt":"2016-02-21T21:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=497"},"modified":"2023-12-15T22:00:53","modified_gmt":"2023-12-15T22:00:53","slug":"eleventh-circuit-rejects-publicity-rights-claim-for-rosa-parks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2016\/02\/21\/eleventh-circuit-rejects-publicity-rights-claim-for-rosa-parks\/","title":{"rendered":"Eleventh Circuit rejects publicity rights claim for Rosa Parks"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>In a well-known case, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a publicity rights claim brought by the estate of Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King Jr. for Social Change v. American Heritage Products, 296 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. 1982). The court enabled the estate to prevent the sale of plastic busts of Dr. King by a seller who had not been authorized to do so by the estate. However, in\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/media.ca11.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/pub\/files\/201510880.pdf\" class=\"mtli_attachment mtli_pdf\">Rosa and Raymond Parks Inst. for Self-Development v. Target Corp.,\u00a0<\/a>2016 WL 25495, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Michigan Constitution&#8217;s guarantee of free speech rights prevented recognition of publicity rights in the estate of Rosa Parks. The seller in that case marketed various items adorned with images of Rosa Parks or which concerned her life, including a plaque showing Parks with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., six books, and a movie. The court found that Michigan&#8217;s state constitutional protections for free speech included a &#8220;qualified privilege to report on matters in the public interest&#8221; and that all the items, including the plaque, contained information of an historical nature protected by this constitutional right.<\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"taxonomy-category wp-block-post-terms\"><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/intellectual-property\/\" rel=\"tag\">Intellectual Property<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/personal-property\/\" rel=\"tag\">Personal Property<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a well-known case, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a publicity rights claim brought by the estate of Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King Jr. for Social Change v. American Heritage Products, 296 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. 1982). The court enabled the estate to prevent the sale of plastic busts of Dr. King by a seller who had not been authorized to do so by the estate. However, in\u00a0Rosa and Raymond Parks Inst. for Self-Development v. Target Corp.,\u00a02016 WL 25495, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Michigan Constitution&#8217;s guarantee of free speech rights prevented recognition of publicity rights in the estate of Rosa Parks. The seller in that case marketed various items adorned with images of Rosa Parks or which concerned her life, including a plaque showing Parks with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., six books, and a movie. The court found that Michigan&#8217;s state constitutional protections for free speech included &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2016\/02\/21\/eleventh-circuit-rejects-publicity-rights-claim-for-rosa-parks\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Eleventh Circuit rejects publicity rights claim for Rosa Parks<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[61,59],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-personal-property"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/497","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}