總之,Sharon Stone的起訴書,除了主張被告Chanel West Coast侵害她的公開權(right of publicity),另外基於反托拉斯法the Lanham Act 15 USC § 1125(a),主張對方未經同意,不當使用其姓名跟肖像,造成大眾誤認雙方有一定的聯結關係。
the Lanham Act 15 USC § 1125(a):
(法條是貼給我自己看的,看倌們趕快跳過)
(1)Any person who, on or in connection with any goods orservices,or any container for goods,usesincommerceany word, term, name, symbol, ordevice,or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin,false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(a)is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,
於是美國最高法院就說了,個人的特徵(Identity)如肖像、姓名、或其他可辨識的獨特特徵,可以獨立於隱私權之外,作為一種財產利益,而稱之為「公開權」(right of publicity)。公開權的特性有點接近智慧財產權,都是無體財產權,可讓與、可繼承(有一定年限),所以貓王的女兒,可以繼承她老爸的肖像,授權給他人使用。