
YES
Pennsylvania recognizes a right to privacy and the appropriation branch of that tort.
Vogel v. W.T. Grant Co., 327 A.2d 133 (Pa. 1974)
Hull v. Curtis Pub. Co., 125 A.2d 644 (Pa. Super. 1956)
YES
The statute provides a thirty (30) year term for post-mortem rights. The person must have died as a domicile of Pennsylvania.
Prior to the adoption of the statutory right, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that biographies were excluded from the common law misappropriation tort and Pennsylvania courts have recognized that the right to privacy is limited by concerns over the freedom of speech.
Corabi v. Curtis Pub. Co., 273 A.2d 899 (Pa. 1971)
Hull v. Curtis Pub. Co., 125 A.2d 644 (Pa. Super. 1956)
Pennsylvania sits in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit has adopted the transformativeness test for analyzing a First Amendment defense to right of publicity claims in the context of New Jersey’s right of publicity. Other federal courts have considered First Amendment concerns in the context of Pennsylvania’s right of publicity and concluded that merchandise parodying professional wrestlers was protected by the First Amendment, as was the use of a civil rights activist’s name and likeness in a movie, and book, though not necessarily on the cover of the CD to the soundtrack.
Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013)
Pellegrino v. Epic Games, Inc., __ F. Supp. ___, 2020 WL 1531867 (E.D. Pa. 2020)
Hamilton v. Speight, 413 F. Supp.3d 423 (E.D. Pa. 2019), appeal docketed (3d Cir. 2019)
World Wrestling Fed. Entm't v. Big Dog Holdings, 280 F. Supp.2d 413 (W.D. Pa. 2003)
Seale v. Gramercy Pictures, 949 F. Supp. 331 (E.D. Pa. 1996)
The Third Circuit has held that Pennsylvania’s right of publicity is not preempted by the Copyright Act.
Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2008)