Does the law require the plaintiff or identity-holder to be a celebrity or have a commercially valuable identity?
YES
Federal courts have recognized that the right of publicity, and potentially the tort of appropriation, require a commercially valuable persona to have been used.
Hauf v. Life Extension Foundation, 547 F.Supp.2d 771 (W.D. Mich. 2008)
Does the law protect persona?
LIKELY YES
Federal courts have extended Michigan’s right of publicity to include recognizable catch phrases. Several courts, however, have rejected claims based on appropriation of voice, at least where the singer(s) were not distinctive.
Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983)
Romantics v. Activision Pub., Inc., 574 F.Supp.2d 758 (E.D. Mich. 2008)
Edwards v. Church of God in Christ, 2002 WL 393577 (Mich. Ct. App. March 8, 2002)
Is Liability Limited to Uses on Commercial Advertising or Commercial Speech?
No court in Michigan has so limited the right, but one federal district court suggested that publicity claims may be limited to uses in commercial speech. Several state and federal courts have suggested a broader framework that only requires some sort of “commercial exploitation” by a defendant. The Sixth Circuit has considered a right of publicity claim in the context of a song title
Parks v. LaFace Records, 329 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2003)
Nichols v. Moore, 334 F. Supp.2d 944 (E.D. Mich. 2004)
Battaglieri v. Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 680 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)
Battaglieri v. Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 680 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)
Armstrong v. Eagle Rock Entertainment, Inc., 655 F.Supp.2d 779 (E.D. Mich. 2009)