Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiff, a renowned singer, brought an action against a motor company and an advertising agency for the unauthorized imitation of her voice in a commercial campaign. The defendants had hired a sound-alike to mimic the plaintiff's distinctive singing style after she declined to participate. The district court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants, stating there was no legal protection against voice imitation. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the imitation constituted a tort under California law, asserting that her voice was a personal identifier akin to her likeness. The appellate court distinguished between informative use, which is protected under the First Amendment, and exploitative commercial use, which is not. Federal copyright law was deemed inapplicable since it does not cover voice imitation. While California Civil Code section 3344 did not provide statutory protection because the plaintiff's voice was not directly used, the court recognized common law rights against identity appropriation. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, acknowledging the plaintiff's sufficient evidence of identity theft, and remanded the case for trial, establishing that imitating a well-known singer’s voice for profit is actionable in California.
Legal Issues Addressed
California Civil Code Section 3344subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: California Civil Code Section 3344 does not apply to Midler as her voice was imitated but not used, highlighting the limits of statutory protection.
Reasoning: Additionally, California Civil Code section 3344, which allows damages for unauthorized use of a person's name, voice, or likeness, does not apply to Midler, as her voice was not used.
Commercial Exploitation of Voicesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court recognized that imitating a well-known professional singer’s voice for profit without consent constitutes a tort under California law.
Reasoning: The ruling does not imply that all voice imitations are actionable but establishes that imitating a well-known professional singer’s voice for profit constitutes a tort in California.
Common Law Rights and Identity Appropriationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court acknowledged that common law rights protect against the appropriation of identity attributes, which can constitute a tort.
Reasoning: The statute clarifies that it does not preclude common law actions, implying such rights exist outside of this specific provision.
Federal Copyright Law and Voice Imitationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that federal copyright law does not protect against mere imitation of a performance, differentiating it from copyright infringement.
Reasoning: Federal copyright law further complicates these issues, as mere imitation of a performance does not constitute infringement, as established in the context of Nancy Sinatra's lawsuit against Goodyear.
First Amendment and Commercial Usesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The First Amendment protects media reproduction of likenesses and sounds, but exploitative use for commercial purposes is not immune from liability.
Reasoning: The media's use of an individual's identity is assessed based on its purpose; if it is informative or cultural, it is immune from liability, whereas exploitative use is not.