Lugosi v. Universal Pictures
603 P.2d 425, 25 Cal. 3d 813, 160 Cal. Rptr. 323 (1979)
Rule of Law:
The right to exploit one's name and likeness for commercial purposes (the right of publicity) is a personal right that does not survive the death of the individual unless that individual exercised and capitalized upon the right in a commercial undertaking during their lifetime.
Facts:
- In September 1930, Bela Lugosi entered into an employment agreement with Universal Pictures to play the title role in the film 'Dracula'.
- The 1930 contract granted Universal the right to use Lugosi's name and likeness to advertise the specific motion picture but did not explicitly grant merchandising rights for commercial products.
- Bela Lugosi died in 1956.
- Starting in 1960, Universal Pictures began entering into licensing agreements with various third-party manufacturers.
- These agreements authorized the licensees to sell commercial products, such as toys and t-shirts, featuring Lugosi's likeness as Count Dracula.
- Universal profited significantly from these licensing agreements.
- Lugosi's widow and surviving son learned of the commercial exploitation and claimed ownership of the merchandising rights.
- The plaintiffs sought to recover profits and enjoin Universal from further unauthorized licensing.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Lugosi's heirs) filed a complaint against Universal in the Superior Court (trial court) seeking profits and an injunction.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, finding a protectable and descendible property right.
- Universal appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal issued an opinion reversing the trial court.
- The Supreme Court of California granted a hearing to review the issues.
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 the exclusive right to commercially exploit a celebrity's name and likeness survive their death and descend to their heirs if the celebrity did not exercise that right during their lifetime?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court (per Justice Roth)
No, the right to commercially exploit one's name and likeness is personal and extinguishes at death unless it was exercised during the individual's lifetime. The court reasoned that this right falls under the law of privacy, specifically the tort of appropriation. Because privacy rights are personal, they generally die with the individual. While an individual can create a transferable 'property' right by building a business around their name or likeness (exploiting it) while alive, Lugosi never did so. He never established a secondary meaning or commercial venture for his likeness separate from his acting roles. Since he did not exercise this right during his life, the opportunity to do so did not descend to his heirs, and his name and likeness entered the public domain upon his death.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Bird
Yes, the 'right of publicity' is a distinct property interest that should survive death regardless of whether it was exercised during the celebrity's lifetime. The dissent argued that the majority confused the personal 'right of privacy' (protection of feelings) with the 'right of publicity' (protection of economic value). Because the right of publicity is a form of intangible property based on the fruits of one's labor, it should be inheritable like a copyright or patent. The dissent proposed that the right should last for the life of the celebrity plus 50 years. Requiring lifetime exercise is illogical because an artist might not have had the opportunity or medium to exploit their likeness while alive.
Concurring - Justice Mosk
No, an actor does not acquire a proprietary interest in a character created by a writer and film studio. The concurrence emphasized that Lugosi was an employee hired to play a role (Count Dracula) that he did not create. Under the California Labor Code, the products of an employee's labor belong to the employer. While an actor might own rights to a character they completely created (like a unique comedian's persona), they cannot claim ownership over a fictional character from a novel just because they played the role. Granting heirs control over historical or fictional roles played by ancestors would inhibit free expression.
Analysis:
This case is a seminal decision in the development of the 'Right of Publicity.' It established a restrictive common law rule in California known as the 'lifetime exploitation' requirement. The court distinguished between the personal protections of privacy law and the property-based protections of publicity, ultimately ruling that without active commercialization during life, the right is merely personal and dies with the celebrity. This decision placed a burden on celebrities to actively merchandise themselves to preserve rights for their heirs. Note that the specific holding regarding descendibility in California was later superseded by the Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act, but the case remains a key text for understanding the theoretical underpinnings of publicity rights versus privacy rights.
