To those of you interested in all things Rihanna or Topshop, their recent head-to-head in the legal world highlights the tensions between celebrities and their IP rights.It seems that Rihanna has all
To those of you interested in all things Rihanna or Topshop, their recent head-to-head in the legal world highlights the tensions between celebrities and their IP rights.
It seems that Rihanna has all of a sudden become oh so shy when it comes to her picture being used. When UK fashion store Topshop began selling a t-shirt emblazoned with a picture of the star without her consent, she reportedly began a law suit seeking $5million in damages. Reports have suggested that Rihanna just didn't think the image was very flattering but of course this could just be rumour. That aside, if Topshop had been selling the t-shirts in their New York store, Rihanna could theoretically have relied on the New York state statute which explicitly provides protection for the right of publicity. Irrespective of whether the claim would be enough to trump the First Amendment's freedom of speech provision, there is at least some form of state law to provide a small comfort for celebrities. However, as the action is based in the UK where equivalent laws do not exist, this could lead to a very interesting judgment indeed. In particular, UK law generally states that the photographer and not the artist is the owner of any copyright in the images.
The notion of image rights, in particular those of celebrities, was first addressed 10 years ago when Eddie Irvine brought his case for passing off and use of his image in an advert without consent and there hasn't been a more prominent case since to test the waters. It would appear that Rihanna will have to rely on these principles also, however, it will be intriguing to see if the Court's sympathies towards celebrities has changed in any great way over the last decade.
Rihanna's recently secured licensing deal with Topshop's high street rival River Island will undoubtedly make this matter much more commercially critically for the star. The deal will most likely be taken into consideration by the Court but whether this is enough to allow her to succeed remains to be seen. This is an opportunity for the UK to have another look at this area of the law and will no doubt strike up debate among the celebrity and fashion worlds. With the US being at the forefront of image, personality, and privacy rights when it comes to celebrities, this is an ideal opportunity to see if the UK is likely to follow suit at any time in the future.
It is perhaps worth a mention that this case also brings into focus the step taken by Guernsey on 3 December 2012 when they introduced the world's first statutory image rights register. Although Guernsey is not part of the UK, had Rhianna registered her image rights there, it would have been interesting to see if the English courts would enforce these foreign IP rights. In light of the huge debate surrounding image and personality rights of late, it may not be too long until this also becomes an issue to consider. It will also be interesting to see if other jurisdictions take the leap and enact a similar image rights register in the near future.
The case has been quickly gaining momentum with the trial this week.
It seems that Rihanna has all of a sudden become oh so shy when it comes to her picture being used. When UK fashion store Topshop began selling a t-shirt emblazoned with a picture of the star without her consent, she reportedly began a law suit seeking $5million in damages. Reports have suggested that Rihanna just didn't think the image was very flattering but of course this could just be rumour. That aside, if Topshop had been selling the t-shirts in their New York store, Rihanna could theoretically have relied on the New York state statute which explicitly provides protection for the right of publicity. Irrespective of whether the claim would be enough to trump the First Amendment's freedom of speech provision, there is at least some form of state law to provide a small comfort for celebrities. However, as the action is based in the UK where equivalent laws do not exist, this could lead to a very interesting judgment indeed. In particular, UK law generally states that the photographer and not the artist is the owner of any copyright in the images.
The notion of image rights, in particular those of celebrities, was first addressed 10 years ago when Eddie Irvine brought his case for passing off and use of his image in an advert without consent and there hasn't been a more prominent case since to test the waters. It would appear that Rihanna will have to rely on these principles also, however, it will be intriguing to see if the Court's sympathies towards celebrities has changed in any great way over the last decade.
Rihanna's recently secured licensing deal with Topshop's high street rival River Island will undoubtedly make this matter much more commercially critically for the star. The deal will most likely be taken into consideration by the Court but whether this is enough to allow her to succeed remains to be seen. This is an opportunity for the UK to have another look at this area of the law and will no doubt strike up debate among the celebrity and fashion worlds. With the US being at the forefront of image, personality, and privacy rights when it comes to celebrities, this is an ideal opportunity to see if the UK is likely to follow suit at any time in the future.
It is perhaps worth a mention that this case also brings into focus the step taken by Guernsey on 3 December 2012 when they introduced the world's first statutory image rights register. Although Guernsey is not part of the UK, had Rhianna registered her image rights there, it would have been interesting to see if the English courts would enforce these foreign IP rights. In light of the huge debate surrounding image and personality rights of late, it may not be too long until this also becomes an issue to consider. It will also be interesting to see if other jurisdictions take the leap and enact a similar image rights register in the near future.
The case has been quickly gaining momentum with the trial this week.