(c) 2006 Associated Press(photo by Mannie Garcia)
By Alex Suskind
White House lawyers are currently in the process of trying to limit the commercial use of President Barack Obama’s picture. According to Bloomberg.com, the lawyers for the administration are attempting to accomplish this in a way that does not trample free speech or violate the First Amendment.
Some examples of recent marketing techniques by companies include Ikea's "Embrace Change" advertising campaign and Southwest Airlines "Yes You Can" sale. In addition, Obama's face has been on countless retail items such as tee-shirts, coffee mugs and basketball jerseys.
The rest of the Obama family has not been spared either. Recently, Ty Inc. released the Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia dolls, and claimed that they were not designed after the first daughters.
Jonathan Band, an intellectual property lawyer in Washington D.C., told Bloomberg.com that the Obama administration might have to examine the illegal use of the Obama brand on a case by case basis.
“Because he is the president of the United States...I think the First Amendment will be applied much more broadly with respect to people wanting to use an image of the president than it would be with typical entertainment figures or sports figures,” added Band in his comments to Bloomberg.com.
- Some courts have recognized a property-like right when the name of a celebrity is used to market another product without prior authorization. Johnny Carson, the former host of The Tonight Show, successfully sued a company, which was advertising their toilets with Carson’s famous catchphrase: “Here’s Johnny.” What argument could you make, both for and against, regarding the President's ability to sue a company using his catchphrase, "Yes We Can" for an advertising campaign?
- Would the same standard apply to Sasha and Malia Obama?
No comments:
Post a Comment