Let me provide my legal analysis. Arguably this violates the President's "right of publicity" (i.e., an individual's right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name, likeness and persona). Whether he is a public figure does not figure in this analysis like people suggests (I think folks are confusing a related legal concept, the "right of privacy", which affords less protection to public figures than non-public figures). There is also a question of whether the bodega owner violated the copyright of owner of the original picture of the President.
As a practical matter, it would require the white house to actively police the use of the name and likeness of the President and I am not sure that the White House is doing so based on the millions of pieces of BHO paraphernalia that I can buy on any corner in NYC.
Let me provide my legal analysis. Arguably this violates the President's "right of publicity" (i.e., an individual's right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name, likeness and persona). Whether he is a public figure does not figure in this analysis like people suggests (I think folks are confusing a related legal concept, the "right of privacy", which affords less protection to public figures than non-public figures). There is also a question of whether the bodega owner violated the copyright of owner of the original picture of the President.
As a practical matter, it would require the white house to actively police the use of the name and likeness of the President and I am not sure that the White House is doing so based on the millions of pieces of BHO paraphernalia that I can buy on any corner in NYC.
Posted by: crispusattucks at June 30, 2009 11:09 AM in response to Closing Bell: Obama Pitching Myrtle Deli