Setting the Precedent

Areas of Law Where Public Figure Status Matters

Living life in the public eye can result in both benefits and difficult obstacles in certain areas of the law. An individual’s status as a public figure is extremely notable in invasion of privacy and defamation cases. For celebrities, the right to publicity also comes into play. FindLaw.com defines the right to publicity as “an individual’s right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name, likeness and persona.” 

In 1988, singer, songwriter, and actress Bette Midler benefited from this right in her complaint against Ford Motor Company. Ford used a voice impersonator of Midler in one of their commercials after Midler refused to be in the commercial herself.  Midler v. Ford Motor Co. found that using an imitation of a celebrity’s “distinctive and widely known” voice without their consent to sell a product constitutes appropriation (Midler v. Ford Motor Co. – 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988). In this case, Midler’s status as a celebrity or public figure made it easier for her to claim that her right to publicity was appropriated.

On the other hand, those deemed public figures in a court of law have a higher burden of proof in defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuits.

The Laws and Precedents Surrounding Compensation for NCAA Athletes

In 1984, Holt v Cox Enterprise set the precedent that an athlete will be considered a public figure or a private citizen on a case by case basis. This decision came about after University of Alabama football player, Darwin Holt, was involved in an on-field incident in which an opposing player sustained several serious injuries.

Holt was subsequently the subject of various articles published by major media outlets that he claims painted him in a bad light and invaded his right to privacy. The defendants in the case argued that Holt was a public figure due to his stardom at Alabama, and that he could not show the “requisite degree of actual malice necessary to hold them liable for their statements” (law.justicia.com). The court ruled in favor of Cox Enterprise and also found that a college athlete’s status as public or private should be determined on a case by case basis.

On the surface, this law is arguably ethical as it leaves the court the ability to account for the many differences between college athletes. However, as other laws regarding NCAA athletes are in the process of being changed, this law might require a deeper look.

In 2014, UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon filed a lawsuit against the NCAA in which he alleged that restricting student athletes from payment for the use of their names, images, and likenesses is an “illegal restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act” (O’Bannon v. NCAA). However, the court ruled that allowing student-athletes to receive compensation not connected to educational expenses was “not an appropriate alternative since it would defeat the student-athletes’ status as amateurs,” (Lexis Nexis). In 2016, this case made a bid for the Supreme Court, but was rejected.

2019 is seeing a serious push towards the payment of NCAA athletes, but the states involved so far are each pushing unique legislation. Without a national law to govern this matter, various issues are bound to arise.