We have previously reported on the dispute between pop star Rihanna and Topshop.Last week Rihanna won her passing off case against Topshop for the sale of a T-shirt bearing her image. Judge Birss
We have previously reported on the dispute between pop star Rihanna and Topshop.
Last week Rihanna won her passing off case against Topshop for the sale of a T-shirt bearing her image. Judge Birss pointed out that there was "no such thing as a general right by a famous person to control the reproduction of their image" but found that the use of her image on the T-shirt amounted to a false endorsement.
Birss' conclusion was clearly driven by the particular facts of this case, including that the image used was similar to one that had been used on a CD cover and that Topshop had previously run a Rihanna competition (i.e. promoting its relationship with the star).
But even without those facts the result is not altogether surprising. In a world where celebrities are often brands in their own right, purchasers know (and expect) celebrities to generate income through endorsement and merchandising. When an image of a famous person is used by a major retailer, consumers may well conclude that it is endorsement rather than think it is not. In fact a friend of mine (with no intellectual property experience) having read about the result said: "Well that's just completely obvious isn't it? Of course Topshop would need her permission for T-shirt like that".
Does the changing public perception of celebrity and brands mean we're getting closer to a quasi image right....?
Last week Rihanna won her passing off case against Topshop for the sale of a T-shirt bearing her image. Judge Birss pointed out that there was "no such thing as a general right by a famous person to control the reproduction of their image" but found that the use of her image on the T-shirt amounted to a false endorsement.
Birss' conclusion was clearly driven by the particular facts of this case, including that the image used was similar to one that had been used on a CD cover and that Topshop had previously run a Rihanna competition (i.e. promoting its relationship with the star).
But even without those facts the result is not altogether surprising. In a world where celebrities are often brands in their own right, purchasers know (and expect) celebrities to generate income through endorsement and merchandising. When an image of a famous person is used by a major retailer, consumers may well conclude that it is endorsement rather than think it is not. In fact a friend of mine (with no intellectual property experience) having read about the result said: "Well that's just completely obvious isn't it? Of course Topshop would need her permission for T-shirt like that".
Does the changing public perception of celebrity and brands mean we're getting closer to a quasi image right....?