No Right of Publicity Claim for Publishing Court Opinion with Plaintiff's Name

Obvious, but good to have a cite for that.

In Busener v. Leagle.com, decided a year ago by Judge Eleanor L. Ross (N.D. Ga. Mar. 25), but just added to Westlaw (2020 WL 8813909), plaintiff sued Leagle—which posts court opinions in a Google-searchable location—for allegedly libeling her "and using her name and likeness without her consent," by "posting … the content of a criminal court opinion where Plaintiff's name is the same as the named defendant in the case." (It isn't clear to me whether this opinion, which involves solicitation of sex for money, indeed involved plaintiff, or someone else with the same name.)

No, said the court, unsurprisingly:

Here, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to claim that the allegedly libelous material is false. Additionally, as court opinions are matters of public record, Defendants use of Plaintiff's name and likeness by posting a court opinion to their website does not constitute a violation of Plaintiff's right to publicity….

Comments

[rsteinmetz]

The case was dismissed without prejudice, it would seem a simple matter to make a claim they posted the wrong picture, if in fact they did.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

Thank YHVH I have a unique name not associated with any criminal(s).

[Just Eric]

I have a relatively rare name (a handful in US), and thanks to Google looking for alternate spellings, searches for my name result in a sex offender with a one-letter-different last name. I've wondered at the pause that might give prospective employers, though 10 seconds of biographical/geographic comparison would relieve any confusion.

[RabbiHarveyWeinstein]

I'd recommend changing your family name so you don't show up in online criminal searches. Choose a good name too, like Cohen, Ginsburg, Greenblatt, Katz, Shapiro, Segal, Rosen, or Zucker.

[John F. Carr]

Somewhere in my family tree is a Paul McCartney. Not that one. Good luck finding any information about him.