In Jackson v. Roberts, 972 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently confronted a copyright question that has long challenged the courts: Is a state law claim for unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s name, voice or likeness—i.e., a right of publicity (ROP) claim—preempted by the federal Copyright Act, when the defendant violates the ROP by reproducing or otherwise exploiting a copyrighted work that embodies such name/voice/likeness? In other words, must the individual plaintiff bring that action as a copyright infringement claim, or go without a remedy? The Second Circuit in Jackson clearly held that the answer was yes, but its route to that conclusion may leave future courts no closer to consensus on how to decide the issue.
美國上訴第二巡迴法院在Jackson v. Roberts, 972 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2020)案中，面臨一個長久以來被挑戰的著作權爭議：未經授權於商業上利用一個人的姓名、聲音、樣貌而據以為州法之主張；聯邦著作權法與知名度兩者競合，以聯邦著作權法優先適用。知名度係以各州州法保護，而著作權美國則有聯邦法保護。

In Jackson v. Roberts, 972 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently confronted a copyright question that has long challenged the courts: Is a state law claim for unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s name, voice or likeness—i.e., a right of publicity (ROP) claim—preempted by the federal Copyright Act, when the defendant violates the ROP by reproducing or otherwise exploiting a copyrighted work that embodies such name/voice/likeness? In other words, must the individual plaintiff bring that action as a copyright infringement claim, or go without a remedy? The Second Circuit in Jackson clearly held that the answer was yes, but its route to that conclusion may leave future courts no closer to consensus on how to decide the issue.