Recent AdditionMichele Mazur v. eBay Inc., Hot Jewelry Auctions.com d/b/a Jewelry Overstock Auctions and Paramount Auctions, et al. |
Right of Publicity - Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions - Updated August 12, 2006165 Misc. 2d 21, 626 N.Y.S. 2d 694 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.Co. 1995)
Court held that defendants, which, for a fee, provided its customers with a wide range of services, including access to the Internet as well as bulletin boards, news and stock quotes, did not violate Howard Stern's right to publicity under N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 by utilizing a photo of Stern, as well as his name, to advertise a bulletin board "debate" discussing the merits of Stern's candidacy for governor. Such use was permitted because under N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 defendant was viewed as news disseminator which was using Stern's likeliness to advertise a news product -- its bulletin board. 78 Cal. App. 4th 362 (Cal. App., 2d Dist., Feb. 17, 2000)
The California Court of Appeals holds that a right of publicity claim asserted under California Civil Code Section 3344 seeking to stop an unauthorized third party from using photographs containing an individual's likeness is not preempted by federal copyright law, provided the claim is asserted against a party other than the holder of the copyright in the photograph. 266 F. 3d 64 (2d Cir., September 26, 2001)
The Second Circuit holds that a government employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an office computer located in his private office in light of the absence of both a computer usage policy advising him to the contrary, and a regular practice by his employer of searching the same. The Court nonetheless holds that the government's search of its employee's computer for evidence of suspected work - related misconduct did not violate the employee's rights under the Fourth Amendment. Such searches are permitted if the search is both justified at its inception and of appropriate scope. Such was the case here, because the government had received notice of alleged job-related misconduct by the plaintiff employee and had conducted an appropriately circumspect inspection of his office computer to ascertain the validity of these allegations. The Second Circuit also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims that both the government's failure to give him a pay raise, as well as its decision to demote him, violated his Due Process rights. Such claims failed because plaintiff lacked the requisite property interest in either his job or raise to sustain a Due Process violation. |
