The right of publicity doctrine was founded on the idea of protecting celebrities’ likenesses from being appropriated by another party without compensating the celebrity that had invested time and money into developing their likeness. In Fraley v. Facebook , however, the court took a different approach, and extended the right of publicity to any individual, regardless of whether they are famous. The court expanded the right of publicity doctrine and set precedent that non-famous individuals can assert a claim based upon a right of publicity as long as it has commercial value. This case marks a departure from right of publicity jurisprudence, which until Fraley relied on the notion that the right of publicity was designed to protect individuals whom had made a substantial investment into their likeness. Although many commentators argue that this expansion of publicity rights benefits those whose likeness is appropriated – it also grants a right to an individual who had no expectation to earn a profit. Using free-rider theory, however, courts going forward can work through right of publicity cases and correctly protect the rights of those individuals who deserve protection, without wrongfully conferring rights to individuals.
名氣權（知名度）一權之創設係保護名人之樣貌未受補償而被另一人不法挪用的想法而來，而該樣貌（或基於其樣貌而形塑與其身分有關者，亦即只要所利用與該名人身分有關聯，進而可聯想到該名人者，均屬之）係經由該名人投注大量的時間或金錢而形塑出來的。然而在Fraley v. Facebook案，法院 採取一個不同的思維，認為舉凡任何人都有right of publicity，只要其主張的right of publicity有商業價值，無關該人是否知名與否。