From October 2016 to March 2017 the team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Tian Lu and Hayleigh Bosher.

Friday, 1 July 2016

Kanye West's 'Famous' music video: publicity rights vs the First Amendment

Kanye West’s music video for “Famous” has sparked outrage for portraying naked celebrities in bed, in the form of life-like wax figures. It is not simply the nudity, but the individuals portrayed, which has led to criticism; Rihanna is seen lying next to former boyfriend and abuser, Chris Brown, alleged serial rapist Bill Cosby is featured, as well as Taylor Swift, Anna Wintour and Amber Rose. Subsequent to the release of the video, Kanye tweeted, “Can somebody sue me already #I’llwait” but later deleted it.

Kanye upstaging Taylor Swift at the notorious 2009 VMAs

While Kanye waits, this Kat contemplates on whether publicity rights can help those featured (this Kat thinks specifically of Taylor Swift who, lying next to Kanye in the video, is also mentioned in the song lyrics, ““I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex. Why? I made that b**ch famous.”). It is an unusual issue, as publicity rights are usually invoked by celebrities against companies who use them in unauthorised advertising and merchandising, rather than their celebrity peers. Also, there have been few cases which have been brought to protect moral rather than economic interests. An exception is Waits v Frito Lay, 978 F. 2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, Tom Waits sued Frito Lay for imitating his distinctive voice in an advertisement. Waits had publicly denounced using artistic talent for commercials. The 9th circuit court in California found that the right of publicity was not limited to economic harm, and instructed the jury to consider damages for mental distress.

Since it is possible to claim for damage to non-economic interests, the main challenge potential claimants will have is whether the use of their likeness is ‘commercial’ or ‘expressive’. For the purposes of this post, the California publicity right is analysed because many of the individuals portrayed are domiciled there, and the video premiered and was likely created there.

Is the use ‘commercial’?
To succeed under the statutory publicity right under s.3344(a) of the California Civil Code, use has to be “for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services without such a person’s prior consent…”. Uses which do not require consent include “news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign” (s.3344(d) California Civil Code). Since the music video does fit squarely in any of the aforementioned uses, s.3344(3)(e) needs to be considered as it sheds light on when use will be commercial:

“The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising.  Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not the use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a)”

A potential argument for proving commercial use is that the release of the video exclusively on the ‘Tidal’ platform, which requires users to pay for content access, functions as a type of advertisement. However, unless Kanye has shares in Tidal, this might not fulfil the criteria that the use be “directly connected with commercial sponsorship” under s.3344(3)(e). Alternatively, it could be argued that music videos are created to encourage people to buy the song, and in this way they act as an advertisement. This argument is more likely to meet the ‘direct connection criteria’, but it is still not a solid foundation for litigation, particularly considering the First Amendment Defence.

The First Amendment Defence
The First Amendment protects expressive uses of celebrity persona against publicity claims.  In California, the ‘transformative use’ test, as developed in Comedy III Productions v Saderup Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (Cal. 2001) is used to determine whether a work should be protected by the First Amendment. The test considers [47] “whether a product containing a celebrity’s likeness is so transformed that it has become primarily the defendant’s own expression rather than the celebrity’s likeness”. The court also noted that [30] “having recognized the high degree of First Amendment protection for noncommercial speech about celebrities, we need not conclude that all expression that trenches on the right of publicity receives such protection…[33] depictions of celebrities amounting to little more than the appropriation of the celebrity’s economic value are not protected expression under the First Amendment.”

This test was applied in Keller v Electronic Arts Inc., F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013) where the court found that the portrayal of a footballer in a video game did not transform the plaintiff’s identity. Considering the aforementioned outcome, it is apparent that Kanye’s video has not transformed the likenesses used. However, claimants may still find it difficult to prove that the use was commercial. Kanye did not use the celebrities because of their commercial value, rather, the use was for the shock factor that could be created because of their personal histories. Each person portrayed was either significant because of her relationship with Kanye or because he/she had appeared in the news, such as Caitlyn Jenner, former US president George Bush, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

Since the music video itself is not for sale, and is arguably an expressive work, this case walks a thin line between a publicity rights violation and First Amendment protection. This Kat suspects it runs too close to the First Amendment to have a favourable outcome for those featured.


Eleonora Rosati said...

Thanks for this very interesting post Emma! Now that 'Famous' is *finally* available on YouTube, could one argue that monetisation through ads depending on number of views (also driven by controversial content) makes stronger case for commercial use?

THE US anon said...


Not sure that a relative level of deeming something "commercial" can (or does) mean that there is a zero sum game with the level of protection under our First Amendment.

Not only that, but here, even purely commercial speech does carry some First Amendment protection.

In other words, the secondary aspect of making money through youtube ad monetisation remains a secondary question - no matter how much money (or how little) is made. Perhaps a point to keep in mind is that the work was not created FOR youtube and the ad revenue (leastwise there has been no suggestion or offer of proof of such).

goldenrail said...

Curious how this visual commentary is any different than the standard rap practice of dissing other performers in songs. Does it matter if the allusion is made visually rather than verbally?

Dot said...

I think that from the perspective of a modern recording agreement (under which most music videos are created, funded and exploited) a music video is very much both a commercial product in itself (to be exploited and monetised in various ways) as well as a promotional tool for the purposes of advertising or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services (including of course the recording synch'ed to the video, but also the artist's merch, and third party products including endorsed/placed products). At present (where YouTube is the primary platform for music discovery, for example) the music video is very much, I think, one of the primary tools for developing goodwill in respect of an artist. I would be interested to see if a judge agreed.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':