Case Study: Woods V. Hobby

1. This was a right to publicity tort because Woods’ name and photographs were used for commercial purposes to attract attention to the shipyard without his prior consent. The shipyard did not have a First Amendment right because what they did would be considered commercial speech. The company used Woods’ name and likeness to promote their shipyard. In addition, because Woods’ is a public figure they would have to have his legal consent to use his image on their products and promotional materials. The fact that the yacht was named Privacy would not have an impact on the case because the name of the yacht is irrelevant and unimportant to the case. It would make a difference if the contract for building the yacht had a clause prohibiting the use of Woods’ likeness without his permission because it would boost his argument for breach of privacy. However, with or without a contract clause he could still sue Christensen Shipyards for using his name and likeness without his permission.

3. The case should be decided in favor of the defendant. There is a primary assumption of risk because when you are snowboarding on a slope there is an increased possibility for injury. In addition, collisions are an inherent risk of skiing/snowboarding. Moreover, Graham was not …show more content…
Cynthia’s right to privacy was not violated because she posted her Ode on Myspace. She doesn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy when she posts something on a public forum such as Myspace. Anyone has the ability to see her Ode once it’s been published online. After she posted her Ode to her online journal on Myspace she could no longer expect a reasonable expectation of privacy. In addition, her last name was easily traceable through her Myspace page and there is no proof that Campbell found Cynthia’s last name or other private facts about her from a private source. All of that information could be found from her Myspace page. Therefore, Cynthia and her family’s right to privacy was not