Unique Art Manufacturing Co. v. T. Cohn, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that while a photograph is a pictorial work of authorship protected by the Copyright Act, a person’s likeness and name are not
• holding that the First Amendment defense was inapplicable where the use of plaintiffs photograph was used “essentially as window-dressing to advance the catalog’s” theme
• holding that a “person’s name or likeness” does not come within sections 102 or 103 of the Copyright Act
• explaining that “any misappropriation of the names and likenesses” of Hawaiian surfers occurred in California, where the catalogue containing their photos was distributed
• noting that the catalog “advertised for sale” tee-shirts “exactly like those worn by the Appellants”
• noting that the court “must find a proper accommodation between the competing concerns of freedom of speech and the right of publicity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).