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

tortplaintiffdefendantwilllease
plaintiffdefendantverdictwilllease

Related Cases

Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 104 Cal.App.4th 703, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 529, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,483, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,237, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,355
View Case »
Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64
View Case »
In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 629225, 2012-1 Trade Cases P 77,810
View Case »
Womble By and Through Havard on Behalf of Womble v. Singing River Hosp., 618 So.2d 1252
View Case »
Doe v. Brown University, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 6888270
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sharman v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 401

Facts

William Sharman, a professional athlete, sued C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc. for libel and invasion of privacy after his picture was used in a beer advertisement without his specific consent. Sharman had previously signed releases allowing the use of his image for advertising purposes, including the possibility of distortion. The court found that Sharman voluntarily permitted his picture to be taken and used, and that he did not restrict its use in the context of beer advertising. The case was tried without a jury.

At no time during the final sitting did Sharman state to anyone at Studio Associates, Inc. that he was unwilling to have his picture used in connection with a beer advertisement.

Issue

Whether Sharman's consent to the use of his picture in advertising precludes his claims for libel and invasion of privacy.

Whether the use of Sharman's picture in the beer advertisement constituted libel or an invasion of his right to privacy.

Rule

Consent to the use of a person's likeness in advertising is a complete defense against claims of defamation and invasion of privacy. A plaintiff cannot maintain an action for invasion of privacy or libel if they have given unrestricted permission for the use of their image, even if the context of the advertisement is not what they anticipated.

A consent to an invasion is a complete defense to the appropriation of a plaintiff's likeness to sell products.

Analysis

The court analyzed the releases signed by Sharman, which granted broad permission for the use of his image. It concluded that Sharman's consent was unequivocal and that he had not placed any restrictions on the use of his likeness. The court also noted that the use of his image in a beer advertisement did not constitute a malicious act or an unreasonable invasion of his privacy, as he had willingly participated in the process and was compensated for it.

It is inescapable that he willingly and voluntarily permitted his picture to be taken for a consideration and executed at that time the aforementioned releases.

Conclusion

The court ruled in favor of the defendant, concluding that Sharman's claims for libel and invasion of privacy were barred by his prior consent.

The verdict is in favor of the defendant on all counts.

Who won?

C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc. prevailed in this case because the court found that Sharman had given clear and unrestricted consent for the use of his image in advertising. The court emphasized that consent negates the existence of any tort, and since Sharman had signed releases allowing the use of his likeness, he could not claim defamation or invasion of privacy. The court also noted that there was no evidence of malice in the use of his image.

The court found that Sharman's claims were barred by the releases he signed, which granted unrestricted permission for the use of his image in advertising, thus ruling in favor of C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.

You must be