Ron Artest During the Lakers Championship Parade

Ron Artest has repeatedly stated that he is new man.  He has put behind him the emotional outbursts, suspensions, and the infamous brawl with Detroit Pistons fans that have defined his career perhaps more so than his basketball skills.  With this newfound perspective on life, he has also decided to give himself a new name.

On September 16, 2011, a Judge granted Artest’s petition for a legal name change after Artest cleared up some outstanding traffic tickets.  Meta is now his first name and World Peace is his last name.  Meta said the name change is “meant to inspire and bring youth together all around the world.”

Coincidentally, his new first name just happens to rhyme with that of his Dancing with the Stars partner Peta Murgatroyd.  Mr. World Peace will be testing out the new name while simultaneously trying to learn the Foxtrot, Samba, and other dances on DWTS.

Millions of Americans wonder how Meta’s basketball skills will translate on the dance floor.  Far fewer are wondering what happens to his old name now that he has legally given it up.

California, like many other states, has statutes in place to protect a person’s right of publicity, giving him or her the right to control the commercial value and exploitation of his or her name, picture, and likeness and to prevent others from unfairly appropriating the value for their commercial benefit.  But what if someone legally changes their name?  Do they still have publicity rights in their old name?  They essentially have abandoned it, so can others use it for commercial benefit?

Meta World Peace is not the only current athlete that has to be concerned about right of publicity issues in his old name [I am looking at you Chad Ochocinco (born Chad Johnson)].  They are also, by no means, the first athletes to adopt names other than their birth names [Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (born Lew Alcindor) and Muhammad Ali (born Cassius Clay, Jr.)].

Do these athletes have rights in the names they gave up?  There is no Federal right of publicity law, so whether a person retains rights in a name they have abandoned will come down to application of the applicable state law.  States’ right of publicity laws vary in breadth, so the answer is a bit unclear.  Laws within a single state can even vary in result.

Take, for example, a case involving Vanna White, in which she sued Samsung for an advertisement that was set in the twenty-first century and conveyed the idea that Samsung products would last until then. The commercial depicted a robot, dressed in a wig, gown, and jewelry which was selected to resemble Vanna White’s hair and dress. The robot was posed next to a game board recognizable as the Wheel of Fortune game show set.  White had not consented to and was not paid for the ad.

Ron Artest During a Lakers Game

The court in that case found that the commercial did not rise to the level of a “likeness” as contemplated by the California publicity statute.  However, the court did find that White’s common law right of publicity claim could survive even though the statutory claim had been dismissed since.  Unlike the statutory right which is limited to the appropriation of name or likeness, the common law right of publicity is based on the “use of any indicia by which the plaintiff is identifiable.”

In this lawyer’s opinion, the common law right of publicity in California acknowledges and preserves the fundamental notions on which right of publicity laws were originally based—that when a person creates value in her name and likeness, he/she alone should be able to capture that value.  No one should be allowed to sell a product by invoking the likeness of another person without obtaining consent.

Some legal professionals argue that a theory of abandonment should apply to right of publicity (like it does to trademarks as well as personal property) when a person surrenders a name (as in the above cases, actually making a legal name change).   However, this ignores the underpinnings of the laws and the fact that the person who chose to change their name is still the same person that created value in both their former and current name.

“Cap” (a/k/a Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) (f/k/a Lew Alcindor) got an Illinois court to agree, but only after appeal.  Abdul-Jabbar sued GMC over an advertisement, done without his consent, in which it referenced him being named MVP of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament three times and likened that to the awards its Buick car had received.  The district court in his case found that Abdul-Jabbar had abandoned the name Lew Alcindor when he legally changed his name.  However, Abdul-Jabbar successfully argued to the appeals court that abandonment is not a defense to a violation of the right of publicity because the right of publicity protects not only a celebrity’s “sole right to exploit his identity, but also his “decision not to use his name or identity for commercial purposes.”  The appeals court ruled that it is not possible for a person to lose rights in their own name or likeness through non-use.

I agree with the Illinois appeals court’s ruling and think that it recognizes the essence of the right of publicity, that is the sole right to exploit (or to choose not to exploit) a name in which a person has created value.

So, Meta World Peace should embrace his new name and outlook on life with some assurance that others will not be able to use “Ron Artest” to promote their products without first getting his permission (sorry to those looking forward to Ron Artest riot gear).  Besides, it just seems like bad karma to tread upon the rights of someone whose name is now World Peace.

Nicholas D. Myers, Esq.