Much obliged for the reply. The bright lines are now brighter. Cheers.

Jason,

Re: this comment: “public use of someone’s image without their permission”….

There is a HUGE misconception that it is illegal to “use” a person’s name/image without their permission. As a lawyer who represents websites that host some negative content (including complaints about businesses & individuals) I have seen literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of demand letters that all say the same basic thing: “Your website contains a complaint about, or a reference to, my client using his/her name/image. You are forbidden to use my client’s name/image without his/her consent.”

The problem with this argument is that it kind of sounds like it could almost be correct….so lots of people think it IS correct. But it’s not, and here’s why: there is a bright-line difference between using someone’s name to talk about that person vs. using someone’s name to advertise/promote a product or service.

For example, Tiger Woods was recently in a car crash. Is it illegal to use Tiger’s name/image for the purpose of talking about that crash? Of course not.

Now compare that to a different situation where a company manufactures and sells golf balls. Can that company put Tiger’s name/image on their product without his permission? Of course not….because in that case, they are using Tiger’s fame to promote a product, not to talk about Tiger.

Even a non-lawyer should understand that these are two different things. Of course, the problem is that the bright-line rule gets blurry when the facts change, so it’s sometimes hard to tell what qualifies as making a commercial use of someone’s name vs. just using their name to talk about them.