Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.
202 F.2d 866 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In addition to the personal right of privacy, an individual has an independent and assignable "right of publicity" in the commercial value of their photograph, which allows for the granting of an exclusive license to publish their image that is enforceable against third parties.
Facts:
- Haelan Laboratories, Inc., a chewing gum manufacturer, entered into contracts with various baseball players.
- These contracts granted Haelan the exclusive right to use the players' photographs in connection with the sale of its chewing gum for a stated term.
- The players agreed not to grant a similar right to any other gum manufacturer during the contract term.
- Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., a rival manufacturer, knew about Haelan's contracts.
- Topps subsequently entered into its own contracts with the same baseball players, authorizing Topps to use their photographs with its products during the term of Haelan's exclusive agreements.
Procedural Posture:
- Haelan Laboratories, Inc. sued Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. in federal district court.
- The complaint included claims for invasion of exclusive rights, unfair competition, and trademark infringement.
- After a trial without a jury, the trial court judge dismissed Haelan's complaint on the merits.
- Haelan appealed the dismissal of its claim regarding the invasion of its exclusive rights to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual have an assignable property right in the publicity value of their photograph, independent of the statutory right of privacy, that can be exclusively granted to another party and enforced against a third party with knowledge of the grant?
Opinions:
Majority - Frank, Circuit Judge
Yes. In addition to the right of privacy, a person possesses a distinct "right of publicity" in the value of their photograph, which can be exclusively licensed. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the contracts were merely a release of the personal and non-assignable right of privacy. Instead, it recognized that prominent individuals have a pecuniary interest in their likeness, and this interest would be meaningless if it could not be exclusively granted. This right of publicity is a transferable legal interest, and a party holding the exclusive license has a valid claim against a third party who, with knowledge, uses the photograph in violation of that grant.
Concurring - Swan, Chief Judge
Yes, but on narrower grounds. Chief Judge Swan agreed that the case should be reversed and remanded but limited his concurrence to the established legal theory of tortious interference with contract. He found Topps liable for intentionally inducing the baseball players to breach their existing contracts with Haelan. He did not explicitly join the majority's creation and recognition of the new, independent 'right of publicity.'
Analysis:
This landmark case is the first to explicitly name and recognize the "right of publicity" as a legal concept distinct from the right of privacy. It shifted the focus from protecting feelings (privacy) to protecting the commercial value of one's identity (publicity). By establishing this right as assignable property, the court created the legal foundation for the modern celebrity endorsement and licensing industry. This decision allows public figures to control and profit from their likenesses and gives licensees a clear legal remedy against unauthorized commercial use.
