Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittortdefendantappealtrialsummary judgment
tortdefendantappealtrialsummary judgment

Related Cases

Allen v. Leybourne, 190 So.2d 825
View Case »
Munroe v. Universal Health Services, Inc., 270 Ga.App. 320, 605 S.E.2d 928, 04 FCDR 3628
View Case »
Murphy v. Taxicabs of Louisville, Inc., 330 S.W.2d 395
View Case »
Kroger Co. v. Young, 210 Va. 564, 172 S.E.2d 720
View Case »
Touchet v. Hampton, 950 So.2d 895, 2006-1120 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 57 USLW 2053, 1988 Copr.L.Dec. P 26,313, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398, 15 Media L. Rep. 1620

Facts

Bette Midler, a renowned singer and actress, was not approached to sing for a Ford commercial, despite the advertising agency's attempts to hire her. Instead, they hired a backup singer, Ula Hedwig, to imitate Midler's voice for the commercial. The commercial aired, and many listeners believed it was Midler singing, leading to the lawsuit for unauthorized use of her voice.

Bette Midler, a renowned singer and actress, was not approached to sing for a Ford commercial, despite the advertising agency's attempts to hire her.

Issue

Did the defendants unlawfully appropriate Bette Midler's voice for commercial purposes without her consent?

Did the defendants unlawfully appropriate Bette Midler's voice for commercial purposes without her consent?

Rule

Under California law, the appropriation of a distinctive voice for commercial gain without consent can constitute a tort.

Under California law, the appropriation of a distinctive voice for commercial gain without consent can constitute a tort.

Analysis

The court analyzed the defendants' actions in the context of California tort law, noting that the imitation of Midler's voice was deliberate and aimed at selling a product. The court distinguished this case from others where the use of a song was licensed, emphasizing that Midler's voice itself was a unique aspect of her identity that was appropriated without permission.

The court analyzed the defendants' actions in the context of California tort law, noting that the imitation of Midler's voice was deliberate and aimed at selling a product.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, allowing Midler's case to proceed to trial based on the tort of appropriation of identity.

The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, allowing Midler's case to proceed to trial based on the tort of appropriation of identity.

Who won?

Bette Midler prevailed in the appeal because the court recognized that her distinctive voice was appropriated for commercial purposes without her consent, constituting a tort under California law.

Bette Midler prevailed in the appeal because the court recognized that her distinctive voice was appropriated for commercial purposes without her consent, constituting a tort under California law.

You must be