Ariana Grande is suing Forever 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for using images of a lookalike model in a recent advertising campaign. Her suit against the teeny-bopper clothing chain includes, in part, a common law right of publicity misappropriation action. There are also claims that Forever 21 used Grande's social media posts in their advertising.
Very quick perusal of publicly available materials on California's common law right of publicity suggests that the key element in this case may well be "identity," that is, whether Forever 21's use of the lookalike model appropriates Grande's identity. Grande's "identity" could be evoked by more than just her name or likeness under California law. In fact, it seems possible that a commercial featuring a robot with a high pony-tail, long hair, lots of pink accessories, camo crop pants, and a penchant for licking donuts could fit the bill. See, e.g., White v. Samsung, 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2443 (1993).
Ariana Grande allegedly specializes in singing, but I am unfamiliar with her work.
Forever 21 specializes in cheap clothing options for young women that are almost cute, but add a twist of ugly that ruins the entire garment.
Should Forever 21 settle? Can they afford it given their rumored financial woes? Does anyone think the so-called lookalike model actually looks like Grande? (I myself don't see it.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/arts/music/ariana-grande-forever-21.html
No comments:
Post a Comment