Montgomery V Montgomery Case Brief

Citation:

Montgomery v Montgomery 60 S.W.3d 524 (2001)

Supreme Court of Kentucky

Facts:

• Music artist, John Montgomery, used his father’s voice and likeness in a music video and the executrix of the father’s estate claimed that the use of the father’s voice and likeness were a violation of common-law and statutory right of publicity. The trial court found that the common-law right of publicity is not inheritable and that the father was not a public figure within the meaning of KRS 391.170. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that the common-law right of publicity is not inheritable but the Court of Appeals assumed that the right of publicity was subsumed in the appropriation prong of the right of privacy. The Court of Appeals formulated its own definition of a public figure and the majority held that the father’s name did not hold “commercial value”. The minority opinion dissented from the majority opinion because of the lack of further investigation and evidence; however, the minority affirmed the conclusion.

Legal Issues:

Is the use of a person’s identity primarily for the purpose of communicating information or expressing ideas a violation of the person’s right of publicity? Does someone who is not a public figure have a right of publicity? How is a public figure defined?

Holding:

The Court of Appeals defined a “public figure” as a person whose name and likeness had a “significant commercial value”. Neither the father’s voice nor image was appropriated for commercial profit within the meaning of statute in the music video of John Montgomery. The use of a person’s identity as a form of expression is not a violation of the person’s right of publicity.

Reasoning:

The opinion reflects a majority view of the court. Congress provided no definition of “Public figure” in the right of publicity statute. The majority opinion found that the father was not a public figure and therefore did not have a right of publicity. The majority opinion also found that the music video was a form of expression and was not violating any rights of publicity because it was not using the father’s name and likeness for commercial profit. The dissenting opinions concluded that the majority did not do a thorough investigation of the evidence in defining and determining whether the father was a public figure. However, the minority opinion agreed with the outcome.