67 F. Supp. 3d 599
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Jeremiah Cummings, Illinois-domiciled musician, was a member of Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes (1973–1980).
- Defendants include Soul Train Holdings, InterMedia entities, and Direct Holdings, all connected to stock footage of The Soul Train Show.
- Blue Notes’ appearances on Soul Train involved no consideration or consent from Cummings for future use, per the SAC.
- Footage from the Blue Notes’ Soul Train performances has been used in DVD sets and in promotional materials, with Soul Train and Time Life trademarks displayed.
- The SAC asserts unlawful publicity and privacy rights under multiple state and federal theories, plus Lanham Act and Illinois law claims; court granted dismissal of SAC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for publicity claims | Cummings asserts applicable publicity law; NY and IL claims both viable. | York choice-of-law applies; domicile dictates applicable law; IL IRPA exemptions apply. | NY publicity claim dismissed; Illinois claim also dismissed on IRPA grounds. |
| Illinois right of publicity exemption | IRPA applies to the use of identity in promotional material. | IRPA exempts use of live performances and promotional materials. | IRPA exemptions apply; IL publicity claim dismissed. |
| Preemption by federal copyright law | Rights of publicity not fully covered by copyright; not preempted. | Once fixed in tangible form, publicity rights are preempted. | Rights of publicity preempted; claims dismissed on preemption. |
| New York right of privacy claim viability | Advertising/Trade use violated NY privacy statute. | Use is incidental/newsworthy and not for trade; permissible. | Privacy claim dismissed under newsworthiness/incidental-use doctrine. |
| Lanham Act false endorsement viability | Inclusion of Cummings misleads about sponsorship/endorsement. | Depictions among many artists; no explicit misleading endorsement shown. | Lanham Act claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) (preemption of publicity rights where recording fixed in tangible form)
- Balt. Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986) (preemption foundation for publicity rights in recordings)
- S.E. Bank, N.A. v. Lawrence, 66 N.Y.2d 910 (1985) (domicile-based choice-of-law for rights of publicity)
- Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) (Lanham Act applicable to artistic works with free-speech safeguards)
- Gautier v. Pro-Football, Inc., 304 N.Y.1 054 (1952) (privacy rights limited for public performances; newsworthiness)