- Published Articles
- In the Press
- Press Releases
Sign Up for Alerts
Sign up to receive receive industry-specific emails from our legal team.
Sign Up for Alerts
We provide tailored, industry-specific legal updates to our clients and other friends of the firm.
Areas of Interest
February 1st, 2012
Court Clears Use of YouTube-famous “Flying Rabbi” in Humor Sketch
The use of someone without permission in entertainment can trigger a lawsuit for "commercial appropriation of likeness." And so it was recently when "Jimmy Kimmel Live" created a video mocking a 2010 "business meeting" between basketball star LeBron James and a rabbi.
The Jimmy Kimmel segment began with Kimmel showing an image of James seeking "advice" from Rabbi Yishayahu Yosef Pinto – an orthodox rabbi known for advising business leaders. Kimmel then announces that he too had met with Rabbi Pinto -- showing the audience a video of himself in a car speaking with an unidentified man dressed in Hasidic garb and loudly chanting. But the Hasidic man in the video was not Pinto. Instead, the show had spliced YouTube footage of New York’s "Flying Rabbi" David Sondik-- a YouTube celebrity.
Sondik sued Jimmy Kimmel and ABC in New York Supreme Court. Sondik claimed the defendants violated California''s right of publicity statute (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 3344) and “misappropria[ted] his likeness” under California’s common law. He also claimed violations of New York’s right of privacy law (N.Y. Civ. Rts. Law secs. 50 and 51), as well as “unjust enrichment” and breach of contract for the unauthorized use of the YouTube clip.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case. They argued that New York law applied, and that under New York law, the use of this YouTube clip was within the “newsworthiness exception” to New York’s right of privacy law. (Under this exception, a defendant’s publication of materials for the purpose of news or addressing a matter of public interest will not violate a person’s right of privacy.)
The court agreed, applied New York law, and dismissed the case: "[T]he clip of plaintiff at issue was used as a part of a comedic (or at least an attempted comedic) or satiric parody of Lebron James’ meeting with Rabbi Pinto, itself undoubtedly an event that was newsworthy or of public interest. . . . [T]he piece primarily makes fun of the idea that LeBron James was seeking business advice from a spiritual leader with whom he could not actually converse." (James does not speak Hebrew.)
The court added that the use of the clip in this “entertainment context” raised “serious First Amendment concerns” that would also require dismissal of the privacy violation claim. The court also noted that plaintiff was not a public figure, and there was no allegation that the use of the YouTube clip “was mean-spirited or intended to injure such that its use would be excluded from First Amendment protection. “ The court also dismissed the "unjust enrichment" and breach of contract claims.
Here, the “newsworthiness exception” insulated the media defendants from a raft of claims. But even an entertainment use resulted in the expensive exercise of defending a suit. (A use in advertising or content tied to a brand or product is more likely to generate a claim.) In sum, whether you represent talent and are considering a licensing request, or you are creating a parody or other material using a person’s image, be sure to consult with your attorney. For more information, contact Rick Kurnit at (212) 826 5531 or email@example.com; Caren Lerner at (212) 705 4833 or firstname.lastname@example.org; or any other member of the Frankfurt Kurnit Litigation, Advertising, or Entertainment Groups.
Disclaimer. This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
Other Entertainment Law Alerts
Film Tax Credits: New York Appeals Court Rejects Portion of Filmmaker’s Expenses
The New York film production tax credit is often a crucial piece of the financing for a film. But the rules governing qualification of expenses are strict.
July 18 2016
New Regulation A Rules Survive Legal Challenge
Here's some news for businesses considering capital raises via the Internet.
June 15 2016
Ruling Maintains That Fair Use Must Be Considered Before Issuing Copyright Takedown Notices
The Ninth Circuit declined to review its earlier opinion in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. that copyright holders must consider fair use before seeking to remove allegedly infringing content from websites such as YouTube and Facebook.
March 18 2016