Bifalgorithm post · Property · Publicity Rights

Case Facts

Case Facts (Property · Publicity Rights) — "Parks v. La Face Records, 76 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Mich. 1999), involved Rosa Parks’s challenge to the use of her n…

Ideas in this flowchart

  • Parks v. La Face Records concerned Rosa Parks’s right of publicity.
  • Rosa Parks challenged the use of her name as the title of a rap song.
  • The song appeared on Outkast’s album Aquemini and was written, performed, marketed, and distributed by defendants.
  • The song was entitled “Rosa Parks.”
  • The lyrics did not mention Parks by name and were not about her or the Civil Rights Movement.
  • The chorus repeated: “Ah, ha, hush that fuss. Everybody move to the back of the bus.”
  • Defendants promoted the album and song through print advertisements, a music video, and stickers on cassette and compact disc cases.
  • No legal relationship existed between Parks and defendants, and defendants did not obtain her permission to use her name.
  • Parks alleged that the use of her name violated her common law right of publicity.
  • She sought monetary and injunctive relief.
  • The court resolved the parties’ motions for summary judgment and injunctive relief.
  • The court denied Parks’s motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief.
  • The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Feed/

Case Facts

Channel

Property

1 page

"Parks v. La Face Records, 76 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Mich. 1999), involved Rosa Parks’s challenge to the use of her name as the title of a rap song written, performed, marketed, and distributed by defendants. Outkast’s album Aquemini included a song entitled “Rosa Parks.” Plaintiff was not mentioned by name in the lyrics, and the song was not about her or the Civil Rights Movement, although its chorus repeated the words “Ah, ha, hush that fuss. Everybody move to the back of the bus.” Defendants promoted the album and song through customary music-business advertising, including print advertisements, a music video, and stickers on cassette and compact disc cases. No legal relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants, and defendants did not obtain plaintiff’s permission to use her name. Plaintiff sought monetary and injunctive relief, alleging that the use of her name violated her common law right of publicity. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment."

Flowchart preview
Series cover
👍
0
0 comments0 shares

Sign in to view and post comments.