Personality rights

Exceptions have been carved out of these general, broad privacy rights when dealing with news and public figures.

Thus, while it may violate an ordinary citizen's privacy to speak about their medical records, one is generally allowed to report on more intimate details in the lives of celebrities and politicians.

In a publicity rights case the issue to decide is whether a significant section of the public would be misled into believing (incorrectly) that a commercial arrangement had been concluded between a plaintiff and a defendant under which the plaintiff agreed to the advertising involving the image or reputation of a famous person.

The plaintiffs were ballroom dancers and they sued the defendant in passing off alleging it wrongfully published their photograph on the cover of a gramophone record entitled Strictly for Dancing: Vol.

In Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd. (1998), the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that simply writing about somebody, even for the purpose of generating a profit, does not constitute appropriation of personality.

being argued that it will be recognized in all common law provinces,[6] with certain characteristics:[7] In 1994, the new Civil Code of Quebec introduced new provisions that enshrine the right to privacy as an attribute of personality:[8] 3.

The following acts, in particular, may be considered as invasions of the privacy of a person: In Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc, the Supreme Court of Canada also affirmed that under Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms privacy provisions, a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject, except where the subject appears in an incidental manner, or whose professional success depends on public opinion.

Images are widely defined and can be any number of personal attributes, such as likeness, mannerisms, gestures, voice, nickname etc.

Personalities able to register fall into 5 categories, namely sole, joint, group, legal and fictional character.

In addition, humans can be registered up to 100 years after the date of death, making the law very favourable for estate managers and trustees.

[19] In a 1994 case involving the estate of Bob Marley, the Supreme Court of Jamaica acknowledged a property right of personality which survived his death.

[24] After much uncertainty concerning the recognition of image rights in South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal provided clarity in the landmark case of Grütter v Lombard.

[29][30] Apart from the unauthorized use of the individual's image, such use also primarily entails a commercial motive which is exclusively aimed at promoting a service or product or to solicit clients or customers.

The mere fact that the user may benefit or profit from any product or service in respect of which the individual's attributes have incidentally been used, is not in itself sufficient.

The use of a person's image can be justified on the grounds of consent, truth and public interest, fair comment and jest.

Much change is expected as it has been reported that around 80% of Korean entertainment agencies voiced difficulties in publicity right violations of their talents.

[35] On December 26, 2022, the Ministry of Justice announced plans to stipulate personality rights in Civil Code in the near future.

Because of this, it is common for South Korean media reports to blur people's faces in press photos, even though there is no problem of defamation.

According to El Mundo Data Protection Agency decided to investigate ex officio by the mere distribution of the image of a person on the Internet without their consent.

[44] The rationale underlying the right of publicity in the United States is rooted in both privacy and economic exploitation.

The right of publicity has evolved rapidly, with a history of reported cases in the United States and worldwide.

[48] For example, falsity or likelihood of confusion generally do not have to be established to present a colorable right of publicity claim.

This was the first, and so far the only, U.S. Supreme Court ruling on rights of publicity and it served to confirm the overall validity of the doctrine and the interests it protects.

There are other notable characteristics of the Indiana law,[example needed] though most of the major movement in right of publicity emanates from New York and California, with a significant body of case law which suggest potentially contradictory positions with respect to recognition of the right of publicity under certain circumstances.

California has both statutory and common-law strains of authority protecting slightly different forms of the right.