Sec. 1. (a) This chapter applies to an act or event that
occurs within Indiana, regardless of a personality's domicile, residence,
or citizenship.
(b) This chapter does not affect rights and privileges recognized
under any other law that apply to a news reporting or an entertainment
medium.
(c) This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) The use of a personality's name, voice, signature, photograph,
image, likeness, distinctive appearance, gestures, or mannerisms
in any of the following:
(A) Literary works, theatrical works, musical compositions,
film, radio, or television programs.
(B) Material that has political or newsworthy value.
(C) Original works of fine art.
(D) Promotional material or an advertisement for a news
reporting or an entertainment medium that:
(i) uses all or part of a past edition of the medium's own
broadcast or publication; and
(ii) does not convey or reasonably suggest that a personality
endorses the news reporting or entertainment medium.
(E) An advertisement or commercial announcement for a use
described in this subdivision.
(2) The use of a personality's name to truthfully identify the
personality as:
(A) the author of a written work; or
(B) a performer of a recorded performance;
under circumstances in which the written work or recorded
performance is otherwise rightfully reproduced, exhibited, or
broadcast.
(3) The use of a personality's:
(A) name;
(B) voice;
(C) signature;
(D) photograph;
(E) image;
(F) likeness;
(G) distinctive appearance;
(H) gestures; or
(I) mannerisms;
in connection with the broadcast or reporting of an event or a
topic of general or public interest.
(4) A personality whose:
(A) name;
(B) voice;
(C) signature;
(D) photograph;
(E) image;
(F) likeness;
(G) distinctive appearance;
(H) gesture; or
(I) mannerisms;
have commercial value solely because the personality has been
formally charged with or convicted of a crime.
[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-13-1-1.]
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.21. Amended by P.L.149-2012,
SEC.17.
Notes of Decisions
Daniels v. Fanduel, Inc., 884 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 4× “[ Ind. Code § 32-36-1-1 (c)(1)(B).] The use of a personality's [name, voice, etc.”
Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, 692 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012).
“It asserts that Indiana’s 1994 Right of Publicity Act, Ind. Code §§ 32-36-1-1 to -20, posthumously vested Monroe’s estate and, hence, Monroe LLC with Monroe's right of publicity.”
Phillips v. Scalf, 778 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In his complaint, Scalf alleged that he owns a majority interest in the right of publicity associated with Dillinger pursuant to the Indiana Rights of Publicity Act, Ind.Code §§ 32-36-1-1 to -20 (2002) (previously codified at Ind.”
Dillinger, LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc., 795 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D. Ind. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Count I accuses EA of violating Indiana’s right-of-publicity statute, Ind.Code §§ 32-36-1-1 et seq. Count II says that EA has committed unjust enrichment.”
Shaw Fam. Archives Ltd. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
“Monroe’s death, by a state with which she had (as far as the court is aware) absolutely no contact during her life, creates a descendible and freely transferable right of publicity that survives for 100 years after a personality’s death.”
Daniels v. Fanduel, Inc., 909 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The proprietors of these games reply that two exceptions, Ind. Code § 32-36-1-1 (c)(l)(B), (c)(3), permit them to use players' names, likenesses, and statistics without compensation.”
Baugh v. For Bare Feet, LLC (S.D. Ind. 2024).
· cites it 5× “("Title VII"); and state law claims for violation of Ind. Code § 32-36-1-1 , et seq. and invasion of privacy.”
Boshears v. PeopleConnect Inc (W.D. Wash. 2022).
· cites it 4× “” Ind. Code Ann. § 32-36-1-1 (West). 20 By statute, the “right of publicity” broadly includes “a personality’s property interest in 21 the personality’s: (1) name; (2) voice; (3) signature; (4) photograph; (5) image; (6) likeness; (7) 22 distinctive appearance; (8) gestures; or…”
Fry v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. (N.D. Ind. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 32-36-1-1 (c)(1). The Court begins with the exception for “material that has political or newsworthy value.”
— Ind. Code § 32-36-1-1(a) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 32-36-1-1(c) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 32-36-1-1(c)(1)(B) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.