What's in a Name? Fred Goldman's Quest to Acquire O.J. Simpson's Right of Publicity and the Suit's Implications for Celebrities

Abstract

The question of whether post-judgment enforcement remedies may include the transfer of publicity rights could, theoretically, be raised by any plaintiff holding a judgment against a defendant perceived as having lucrative publicity rights. This Comment explores the legal complexities surrounding the newest chapter in the Simpson storyline as well as the implications of this lawsuit for other celebrities.

Part II of this Comment discusses the history and background of the right of publicity and how it differs from the right of privacy. It provides an overview of the right of publicity's expansion through the years to cover more individuals and more attributes of identity. As California law is controlling in this case, Part III details the right of publicity within the context of California state law. While California uses a combination of common-law and statutory provisions to protect against the infringement of publicity rights, the focus will be on the two statutes establishing causes of action for both living and deceased persons. Part IV outlines the arguments advanced by Fred Goldman and Simpson and evaluates them in light of relevant case law and statutory provisions. This discussion is followed by an analysis of the court's rationale in deciding to dismiss the case. Part V offers thoughts on the court's opinion and argues the result it reached was the correct one under the current law. Part VI speculates as to the possible implications of suits seeking a celebrity's right of publicity, including concerns of involuntary servitude. Finally, Part VII concludes the Comment by asserting that the assignment and transfer of publicity rights, while not currently recognized in the debtor-creditor context, should be available as a remedy for unpaid creditors.