Almost a month ago, this Blog discussed the possibility for people to monetize the celebrity in their personality through claims of misappropriation of personality. This topic is especially important in this digital day in age, with advent of our global communication system and technologies like Youtube, Facebook as well as smart phones which enable people to attract commercial value through their image/personality. The risk is where others seek to free ride on others fame without permission, or without paying a royalty. Unfortunately, as this next post demonstrates, the remedy of misappropriation is not available to the whole world, especially when there is a public interest to disclose information about certain individuals.
Beverly Stayart was curious about what she would find when she put her name into a search engine. The results were unflattering to Beverly. In 2010, she brought a first lawsuit against a search-engine company, claiming that the results it associated with her name falsely gave the impression she personally endorsed the products and services listed, including various pharmaceuticals and what a U.S. Court referred to as “websites promoting sexual escapades”.
In April of this year, Stayart sued Google on the same grounds. As per the U.S. court i Stayart v. Google: ”Dissatisfied with the results of internet searches for her name, Beverly Stayart has launched a legal campaign against internet search engines. In this, her third lawsuit, she contends that Google is in violation of Wisconsin misappropriation laws because a search for “bev stayart” may lead to a search for “bev stayart levitra,” which in turn may lead to websites advertising drugs to treat male erectile dysfunction. The district court dismissed her lawsuit for failure to state a plausible claim for relief and … we affirm.”
Interestingly, one reasons why Stayart was unsuccessful in her most recent lawsuit is because she attracted so much publicity in 2010. As mentioned from the outset of this post, there is a “public interest” exception to misappropriation laws. In her case against Google, the Court found that “Stayart made the challenged search phrase ‘bev stayart levitra’ a matter of public interest by suing Yahoo! over it in 2010. And as a matter of public interest, that phrase cannot serve as the basis for a misappropriation suit.”
Perhaps more interestingly, a search for the term “Streisand Effect,” is now defined by Wikipedia as “the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the internet,” but this is yet another excellent example of that.
In short, if you are seeking to use the Internet to become a celebrity, bringing an unfounded claim for misappropriation of personality might get you all the attention and popularity of a “celebrity”, but certainly won’t allow you to monetize the “celebrity” in you, at least not through the Courts. If you’re lucky, Wikipedia might even dedicate a whole page to your name.
Related articles
- Beverly Stayart’s Plan to Sue the Internet for Privacy Backfires (blogs.findlaw.com)
- Google not liable for vanity search results (stuff.co.nz)
- Yes, Google Can Use Your Name To Generate Ads – And Not Pay You (GOOG) (businessinsider.com)
- Yes, Google Can Use Your Name To Generate Ads – And Not Pay You (GOOG) (embargozone.com)
- Judge: If you Google yourself and don’t like results, Google not to blame (mercurynews.com)
