LAW: SHOULD 'PUBLICITY' BE A 'LEGAL ASSET?' [+] serious ballot by Cathexis ACTIVE Fri Sep 22, 06 - 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. No: A person's 'publicity' should NOT be considered a seizable asset. Depends (explain) Other Ballot #102336 : SEE RESULTS Comment: show your vote with comment?

v 1.5

© BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank: