result #102336 - LAW: SHOULD 'PUBLICITY' BE A 'LEGAL ASSET?'

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

LAW: SHOULD 'PUBLICITY' BE A 'LEGAL ASSET?'

[+] serious ballot by Cathexis
ACTIVE Sep 22,2006 - Wed May 14, 08

Many years ago, Fred Goldman successfully sued OJ Simpson (in civil court) for a judgment of about $38 million (the original $19 million award for the Wrongful Death decision, plus interest). However, OJ has told Fred he is out of luck -- he doesn't have that kind of money.

Now, however, Goldman is seeking to seize Simpson's greatest asset -- his Publicity. Specifically, his the right to distribute merchandise featuring OJ's name, likeness, etc. (including T-shirts, coffee mugs, existing autographs, and such), and the right to license these items for merchandising or advertising.

Goldman's legal team asserts they may seize this 'asset' to help satisfy the court judgment, just as if they were seizing real estate, tangible property, patents, copyrights, or other traditional assets.

OJ couldn't be forced to act/pose/etc., but would lose rights to do so (as well as losing rights to any existing materials).

Do you believe that the right to a person's Publicity should be considered a seizable asset?

Yes: A person's 'publicity' should be considered a seizable asset.	6
No: A person's 'publicity' should NOT be considered a seizable asset.	5
Other	3
Depends (explain)	2

Ballot #102336: has 16 total votes.
invite people to vote on this ballot!

Comment:

content @ BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

email this ballot link to friends

COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes: A person's 'publicity' should be considered a seizable asset.
And, it should apply to non-murderers, too.

by Black_Lava on Fri Sep 22, 06 2:43pm [+]

Voted : Yes: A person's 'publicity' should be considered a seizable asset.
I suppose that if one has won a judgement against a person, and that person fails to pay, then all forms of assets should be seizable. Here's a note: OJ has an NFL pension of $25K a month ($325K a year) that cannot be touched. So, whatever happens, OJ's set.

by margaret123 on Fri Sep 22, 06 2:50pm [+]

Voted : Depends (explain)
This one redefines "slippery slope"...

The benefits would pretty much extend solely to the famous-and-once-rich, and the person who gets nailed by this statute could theoretically sabotage their "fame" by doing somethign particularly embarrassing/nasty that would guarantee their name being worth slightly less than mud. Makes me glad that I opted to be a boring turbonerd...

by Truthseeker013 on Fri Sep 22, 06 4:38pm [+]

Voted : Other
It already is. Haven't you heard of the legal term, "Good Will."

by xxxxxxxx on Mon Sep 25, 06 10:16am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact