Wendt V. Host

Below is a short sample of the essay Wendt V. Host. If you sign up you could be reading the rest of this essay in under two minutes. Registered users should login to view the essay.

Wendt V. Host

US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Name:WENDT V HOST INTERNATIONAL
Case Number: Date Filed:
96-55243 12/28/99
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE WENDT, an individual;
JOHN RATZENBERGER, an individual,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
No. 96-55243
HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation, D.C. No.
Defendant-Appellee, CV-93-00142-R
and ORDER
PARAMOUNT PICTURES,
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Filed December 28, 1999
Before: Betty B. Fletcher and Stephen S. Trott,
Circuit Judges, and Bruce S. Jenkins,1 District Judge.
Order; Dissent by Judge Kozinski
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing.
Judge Trott voted to reject the petition for rehearing en banc
and Judges B. Fletcher and Jenkins so recommend.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en
_________________________________________________________________
1 Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins, Senior United States District Judge for the
District of Utah, sitting by designation.
14901
banc. An active Judge requested a vote on whether to rehear
the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of
the votes in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P.
35.
The petition for rehearing is denied and the petition for
rehearing en banc is rejected.
_________________________________________________________________
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, with whom Judges KLEINFELD
and TASHIMA join, dissenting from the order rejecting the
suggestion for rehearing en banc:
Robots again. In White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971
F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992), we held that the right of pub-
licity extends not just to the name, likeness, voice and signa-
ture of a famous person, but to anything at all that evokes that
person's identity. The plaintiff there was Vanna White, Wheel
of Fortune letter-turner extraordinaire; the offending robot
stood next to a letter board, decked out in a blonde wig,
Vanna-style gown and garish jewelry. Dissenting from our
failure to take the case en banc, I argued that our broad appli-
cation of the right of publicity put state law on a collision
course with the federal rights of the copyright holder. See 989
F.2d 1512, 1517-18 (9th Cir. 1993).
The conflict in White was hypothetical, since the defendant
(Samsung) did not have a license from the Wheel of Fortune
copyright holder. Here it is concrete: The...

The complete article is about 9052 words and 36.21 pages long.

To continue reading the complete article, subscribe below and get free instant unlimited access.

Once you have registered for an Account, No refunds can be issued.
Please make sure you look over the site before you purchase an account!!!