Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Productions
Cal.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Members of N.C. State Univ.'s 1983 Ncaa Men's Basketball Nat'l Championship Team v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n N.C. Bus. Ct.
- 2023Batis v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. N.D. Cal.
- 2023Woloszynska v. Netflix, Inc. N.D. Cal.
- 2022Gaul v. Truth Now LLC C.D. Ill.
- 2022Melendez v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. 2d Cir.
- 2021Melendez v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. S.D.N.Y.
- 2021Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. D. Nev.
- 2018De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC Cal. App. Ct.
- 2017Daniel v. Wayans Cal. Ct. App.
- 2016Sarver v. Chartier 9th Cir.
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
JEAN GUGLIELMI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SPELLING-GOLDBERG PRODUCTIONS et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Attorneys
- Counsel
- Rudin & Perlstein and Vincent H. Chieffo for Plaintiff and Appellant.
- Lillick, McHose & Charles, Kenneth E. Kulzick, Lawrence W. Dam and Kathleen Hallberg for Defendants and Respondents.
- Selvin & Weiner and Paul P. Selvin as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
Appellant allegedly is the nephew of the actor Rudolph Valentino, who died in 1926. According to the complaint herein, in 1975, respondents exhibited on television a “fictionalized version” of Valentino’s life, depicting the actor’s name, likeness and personality without obtaining the prior consent of either Valentino or appellant. In the present action, appellant seeks damages and injunctive relief on the theory that respondents have misappropriated Valentino’s “right of publicity,” and that appellant as Valentino’s legal heir is the present owner of that right. Respondents’ demurrer to the complaint was sustained and, upon appellant’s refusal to amend, the complaint was ordered dismissed. This appeal followed.
In Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, ante, page 813 [160 Cal.Rptr. 323, 603 P.2d 425], we hold that the right of publicity protects against the unauthorized use of one’s name, likeness or personality, but that the right is not descendible and expires upon the death of the person so protected. Lugosi controls the disposition of the present case and makes it unnecessary to discuss any further issues raised by the parties.
The judgment is affirmed.