North Carolina recognizes the privacy-based appropriation tort, but has not recognized a distinct right of publicity.
NO
NO
No court has considered the question.
Does the law require the plaintiff or identity-holder to be a celebrity or have a commercially valuable identity?
NO
No court has required a showing of a commercial value, and appellate courts in the state have allowed claims by plaintiffs who do not have an independent commercial value in their identities.
Flake v. Greensboro News Co., 195 S.E. 55 (N.C. 1938)
Hien Nguyen v. Taylor, 723 S.E. 2d 551 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012)
Does the law protect persona?
No court has considered the issue.
Is Liability Limited to Uses on Commercial Advertising or Commercial Speech?
NO
The North Carolina Supreme Court has allowed a claim against a newspaper and has used the Restatement (Second) of Tort’s broader articulation of the appropriation tort as being a use for the defendant’s “advantage,” regardless of commerciality. Although the state supreme court early on stated that the appropriation tort arises in the context of “advertising” or in connection with a “commercial enterprise,” these limits exceed the boundaries of commercial speech. One North Carolina appellate courts allowed claims arising out of a use in documentary, as a bonus feature in the DVD edition.
Hall v. Post, 372 S.E. 711 (N.C. 1988)
Flake v. Greensboro News Co., 195 S.E. 55 (N.C. 1938)
Hien Nguyen v. Taylor, 723 S.E. 2d 551 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012)
In 2009, North Carolina considered a bill that would add a post-mortem right, but the bill did not pass.
Proposed House Bill No. 327