Kardashian West is suing an Alabama doctor for using her name and likeness without permission to promote the procedure. 金、卡黛珊偉斯特對一名阿拉巴馬州的醫師未經其允許使用她的姓名和樣貌去為之行銷而提起民事訴訟 Kim Kardashian West is no stranger to making headlines, but about seven years ago the headlines themselves were stranger than usual thanks to a "vampire facial" the reality star turned entrepreneur underwent while filming Kourtney and Kim Take Miami. 金卡黛珊偉斯特成為頭條新聞已見怪不怪 Last year, Kardashian West divulged that she regretted the procedure and likely would have backed out if she hadn't been filming the show because she recently learned she was pregnant and couldn't use any pain mitigating products — and now she's suing because her name and image are being used to sell the service without her permission. Kardashian West on Monday sued an Alabama doctor for using her likeness to promote a similar procedure. In the complaint filed in California federal court, she alleges Charles Runels has been using her name, face — and even an Instagram pic (see below) — to boost his licensing business.
Rights & Licenses 權利及授權 [Sender.Name] is requesting the exclusive right and license to utilize this name in connection with the advertisement, promotion, and sale of their product. This contract is an agreement for those rights and services with the following terms being in place. 被授權者（下稱甲）要求專屬權及被授權利用權利者（下稱乙）之姓名於廣告行銷與銷售產品。本契約係依根據下列條款所為係爭權利與服務之協議。 [Endorser.Name] will provide rights for [Sender.Company] to hold all exclusive rights and licenses needed during the term of [Agreement.Term]. including the ability for use of any nicknames, initials, autographs, photographs, or any other property in relation to the advertisement or sale of mentioned product. 在契約期間，乙將專屬授權與甲，包括有權去利用任何乙之別名、藝名、簽名，照片或其他任何與廣告行銷有關之財產或本契約提及之銷售產品。 Endorsement Agreement Effective Date 代言契約生效日 This agreement shall become effective as of signature dates below and will remain effective for a term of 12 months unless prematurely terminated for failure to comply with any of the terms or conditions listed in this agreement. 本契約於下簽名日時生效，並於簽名生效後12個月為契約期間，除非契約任一方有違約情事，於預先終止本契約，否則契約仍有效存續。 Payment of Royalties 給付權利金 [Sender.Company] agrees to pay all royalties due from sales of such products as agreed between parties.Any and all royalties owed will be due on a yearly basis and shall be payable no later than thirty (30) days after the termination of the preceding full calendar quarter. 甲願給付雙方同意銷售產品所得所有之權利金。如何拖欠及所有之權利金應以年度為基準來給付。 For each royalty period due [Sender.Comany] will provide endorser with written notice of all royalties as well as any and all descriptions of Products that were sold during the Royalty Period or whether any actual Royalty was owed. “Net Sales” shall mean [Sender.Company] gross sales of Product, excluding all customary discounts and allowances as well as returns. The receipt or acceptance by [Endorser.LegalName] for above mentioned statement or payment shall not prevent Endorser from challenging or requesting proof of such document findings. Any and all obligations for the payment of Royalties shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement and will continue for as long as Endorsed Constructor continues to sell the Product or payment is owed. In the event of underpayment to endorser for any and all royalties, endorser will bill for all royalties as well as interest fees in relation for said royalties. 請尊重著作權；違法利用，本人必究。
In what the plaintiff called a “nearly identical” case filed at the beginning of 2019, Hadid similarly copied and posted a paparazzi photo of herself, owned by Xclusive-Lee, Inc., to one of her social media accounts without license or permission from the copyright owner. Xclusive-Lee, Inc. v. Hadid, 1:19-cv-00520-PKC-CLP (E.D.N.Y. 2019). 於2019年年初，哈蒂重製一張由狗仔對所攝含有她自己的照片並上傳於其社群網頁，而該照片之著作權人為Xclusive-Lee, Inc.,該公司遂以“幾近相同”為由，對之提起侵害著作財產權訴訟。 Aside from bringing the same claim as Cepeda, Xclusive also notes that Hadid had first-hand knowledge that what she was doing constituted copyright infringement since she had been sued for the same thing just two years prior. The district court dismissed this case due to a lack of a copyright registration, though Hadid’s legal team also raised the defenses of fair use and implied license. The second case may have begun paving the way for future legal challenges to clarify these issues by raising a novel argument—implied license—alongside the more typical defense of fair use. Perhaps the time has come for these arguments to finally be decided by the court since Hadid has been sued yet again—this time for posting a photographer’s copyrighted photo of her former boyfriend and singer/songwriter, Zayn Malik, without license or permission. O’Neil v. Hadid, 1:19-cv-8522 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for January 14, 2020.以上中文譯文，為本人所譯；請尊重著作權，違法利用，本人必究。
Hadid Cases Hadid was first sued for copyright infringement in 2017, when she uploaded to Instagram a photo of herself taken by photographer Peter Cepeda. Cepeda v. Hadid, 1:17-cv-00989-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. 2017) Cepeda had properly registered his photo with the Copyright Office and subsequently licensed it through Instar Images to The Daily Mail and TMZ for use in their articles. Without license or permission of Cepeda, Hadid uploaded the photo to two of her social media accounts, receiving millions of likes. Due to her large following, various online publications copied and posted the photo crediting Hadid instead of Cepeda. Cepeda subsequently filed suit for violation of his exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution of his copyrighted work, but the case quickly settled out of court. 哈蒂首次以侵害著作權被訴係在2017年，其在社群首頁instagram上傳一張由攝影師Peter Cepeda所攝，且已經向國會圖書館登記取得著作權之照片（美國著作權須登記方才取得著作權；美國著作權主管機關係國會圖書館），Peter Cepeda隨後將該照片授權The Daily Mail 與 TMZ雜誌，可於其文章利用該照片。未經Peter Cepeda之授權或同意，哈蒂上傳前開照片於其所有的兩個社群帳號，而獲得數百萬之點讚。肇因於粉絲大量跟追，許多線上媒體直接重製與上傳該照片來讚揚哈蒂，取而代之向Peter Cepeda取得授權獲同意。Peter Cepeda旋即向哈蒂提起侵害其攝影著作之重製權及散布權之訴訟，然該案很快透由訴訟外和解而解決。
ven 50 years after her death, Marilyn Monroe continues to remain relevant. In a strongly worded Opinion (available here) last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Estate of Marilyn Monroe does not have the right to stop others from using Marilyn Monroe’s name and likeness. At issue in the case was whether Monroe’s Estate inherited a right of publicity in Marilyn Monroe’s name and likeness under California law. 在強而有力以文字載述下來的見解，第九巡迴上訴法院上週判決瑪麗蓮夢露遺產管理人無權去禁止他人利用其姓名及樣貌。本件之爭點是，瑪麗蓮夢露遺產管理人依照加州法是否繼承瑪麗蓮夢露之知名度（名氣權）。 Background: For the past 50 years—since Monroe’s death in August 1962—Monroe’s Estate (and its successor, Monroe, LLC) has been asserting that it inherited Monroe’s right of publicity, claiming to own Monroe’s images, voice, likeness and biographical information—rights that were worth $27 million in 2011. 背景：從夢露1961年去世50年來—夢露之繼承人，夢露股份有限公司主張其繼承夢露之知名度，宣稱其對夢露的圖像、聲音、樣貌、自傳資料擁有權利，這些權利在2011年值2千7百萬美元。 New York or California? Rights of publicity vary from state to state: though most states recognize the right during a person’s lifetime, only a few states extend those protections after death. Though in California individuals have a posthumous publicity right, which can be bequeathed, in New York, the right of publicity is extinguished at death. Monroe died at a house she owned in Brentwood, California, though she also maintained her prior residence in New York City. Thus, the issue before the court was clear: if Monroe was a California resident at her death, the Monroe Estate would have inherited control of her name and likeness; if she was a New York resident, those rights would have expired when Monroe died. 紐約或加州：知名度這個權利之適用法各州不同，雖然大部分的州承認在人生存期間有知名度這個權利。僅有少許之州擴張至人死後仍擁有該權利。雖然加州人承認死後名氣權，可以繼承；但在紐約州名氣權於人死時消滅。夢露死於其位於加州Brentwood的房子內，雖然她亦主張在紐約市有住所。因此審理法院很明確地了解到本案爭點係，假如夢露死時是加州居民，那麼夢露遺產管理人將取得支配其姓名及樣貌之權，反之，夢露死時若是紐約州居民，上開權利將於其死亡時消滅。 Prior Proceedings. After her death, Monroe’s lawyer and executor, Aaron Frosch, asserted to both the New York Surrogate’s Court and the California tax authorities that Monroe died a domiciliary of New York. This allowed the Monroe Estate to avoid substantial California estate, inheritance and income taxes. And in 1994, the Monroe Estate faced a claim by Monroe’s alleged daughter, Nancy Miracle, who sought 50% of the Estate under a provision of California law, which was not available under New York law. The Estate defeated that claim by alleging that Monroe died a New York citizen. 於夢露死後，前訴訟程序中，夢露的律師同時亦是遺產執行人Aaron Frosch在紐約Surrogate's Court 和加州稅捐機關皆主張夢露是紐約州居民。這使得夢露的遺產可規避大筆的遺產稅和所得稅。1994年由一位宣稱是夢露女兒者Nancy Miracle依據加州法律對夢露遺產起訴請求50%的遺產，惟該法律為紐約州所無。最終判決認定夢露死時是紐約居民適用紐約州法（種種跡象顯示，夢露之遺囑執行人即其委任之律師，均主張夢露之住所為紐約，故以紐約州法為準據法）。 The Current Lawsuit and the May 2007 Ruling. 目前之訟端及2007年5月之判決 The lawsuit was brought in March 2005, when the Marily Monroe, LLC (the successor to the Estate) sued Milton Greene Archives, Inc., claiming ownership of Monroe’s right of publicity and alleging that the defendant unlawfully used Monroe’s image and likeness. 該訴訟於2005年3月提起，當Marily Monroe, LLC (夢露遺產繼承人) 對Milton Greene Archives, 公司起訴，主張其擁有夢露之名氣權，同時宣稱被告非法利用夢露之圖像及外貌。In May 2007 the district court granted summary judgment, holding that Monroe LLC did not own Monroe’s right of publicity because at the time of Monroe’s death neither New York nor California recognized a descendible, posthumous right of publicity. 2007年5月地區法院裁付即決決判 ，認為Monroe LLC並不擁有夢露之名氣權，因為在夢露身故時，不管是紐約州或加州都未承認死後名氣權。As the District Court explained, the California law that made publicity rights inheritable was only passed in 1984, decades after Monroe’s 1962 death.地區法院解釋道，加州法規定承認死後名氣權係在夢露死後22年即1984年才通過立法。 The California Legislature Overturns the Court. 加州立法部門推翻法院判決。In direct response to the Distict Court’s 2007 ruling, the California legislature passed a bill later that year, which said the publicity rights inheritance law was retroactive and applied to all those who had died prior to 1984. 直接對2007年地區法院之判決做出回應，加州立法部門後來在該年立法通過，名氣權可以繼承並回溯同時適用那些於1984年之前身故之人。The new law made the right of publicity freely transferable, descendible and able to pass through the residual clause in the will of the deceased personality The law was explicitly designed to abrogate the 2007 ruling.新法使名氣權可任意移轉、繼承，並可藉由身故名人遺囑之殘存條款來過繼。 The District Court’s Second Ruling. Monroe LLC later sought reconsideration of the district court’s ruling. Although the district court granted Monroe LLC’s motion for reconsideration, it found that Monroe LLC was “advanc[ing] a position inconsistent with that taken by the estate in the prior proceeding[s].” The District Court thus ruled that judicial estoppel would preclude Monroe, LLC from now taking an inconsistent position. Ninth Circuit Ruling. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that judicial estoppel prevented Monroe LLC from taking the position that Monroe died domiciled in California when it had prevailed in earlier suits on the premise that Monroe was a domiciliary of New York: “This is a textbook case for applying judicial estoppel. Monroe’s representatives took one position on Monroe’s domicile at death for 40 years, and then changed their position when it was to their great financial advantage,” the appeals court said. Thus photographers, artists, and others will be able to exploit images without authorization from the estate. As the Ninth Circuit explained: “We observe that the lengthy dispute over the exploitation of Marilyn Monroe’s persona has ended in exactly the way that Monroe herself predicted more than 50 years ago: ‘I knew I belonged to the public and to the world, not because I was talented or even beautiful but because I had never belonged to anything or anyone else.”