Midler v. Ford Motor Company case
brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
849 F.2d 460
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff appealed from
a judgment of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California granting summary judgment in favor of
defendants in plaintiff's action for appropriation of her distinctive
voice for use in an advertisement.
FACTS: Defendant company and defendant agency advertised automobiles with a series of television commercials. Different popular songs of the 1970s were sung on each commercial, and the agency tried to get the original artists to sing them. Where it failed, the agency had the songs sung by "sound alikes." The agency requested that plaintiff sing the song, which she refused. The "sound alike" imitated plaintiff to the best of her ability. After the commercial was aired, plaintiff and the "sound alike" were told by a number of people that it sounded exactly like plaintiff. Neither plaintiff's name nor her picture was used in the commercial, and the agency had a license from the copyright holder to use the song. The district court believed there was no legal principle preventing imitation of plaintiff's voice and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the court reversed, holding plaintiff's distinctive voice was protected from appropriation.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the trial court's order of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's action and remanded for trial.
FACTS: Defendant company and defendant agency advertised automobiles with a series of television commercials. Different popular songs of the 1970s were sung on each commercial, and the agency tried to get the original artists to sing them. Where it failed, the agency had the songs sung by "sound alikes." The agency requested that plaintiff sing the song, which she refused. The "sound alike" imitated plaintiff to the best of her ability. After the commercial was aired, plaintiff and the "sound alike" were told by a number of people that it sounded exactly like plaintiff. Neither plaintiff's name nor her picture was used in the commercial, and the agency had a license from the copyright holder to use the song. The district court believed there was no legal principle preventing imitation of plaintiff's voice and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the court reversed, holding plaintiff's distinctive voice was protected from appropriation.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the trial court's order of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's action and remanded for trial.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment