## Facts

- Clifford Allison licensed his likeness to a trading-card company in exchange for royalties; after his death, royalties were paid to his estate.
- Orel Hershiser licensed his name and image to the MLB Players Association, which sublicensed his image to trading-card manufacturers; Hershiser received revenue shares.
- HMA Investments, Inc., doing business as Vintage Sports Plaques, bought licensed trading cards from authorized manufacturers and distributors.
- Vintage did not alter the cards; it mounted individual cards in display plaques (acrylic over card on a wood board) and added an identification plate naming the player or team.
- Some plaques also included a sports-themed clock; Vintage marketed plaques as “Limited Edition” and “Authentic Collectible.”
- Vintage had no direct license from Allison’s estate or Hershiser and paid them no royalties beyond royalties already received on the initial authorized sale of the cards.

## Issues

1. Whether Alabama’s common-law right of publicity is limited by the first-sale doctrine so that a lawful purchaser of licensed trading cards may mount and resell them without obtaining a new license or paying additional royalties.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Vintage.
- The court held that the first-sale doctrine applies to Alabama’s common-law right of publicity.
- Vintage’s conduct was treated as resale of lawfully acquired goods rather than a new, separate commercial exploitation of the plaintiffs’ identities.

## Legal Principles

- The first-sale doctrine prevents a rights holder from controlling further distribution of a lawfully sold, tangible item after an authorized first sale.
- Under Alabama common law as applied here, the right of publicity does not extend to prohibit or tax downstream resale or repackaging of an authorized, lawfully sold item bearing a celebrity’s image, when the underlying image is not altered.
- A reseller’s additions that present the licensed item for display (e.g., framing and identification labeling) do not alone convert resale into an unauthorized publicity-rights use when the identity is not used to market a separate product distinct from the licensed item.

## Conclusion

Because the trading cards were lawfully produced and sold under valid licenses and Vintage merely mounted and resold the unaltered cards, the first-sale doctrine barred the plaintiffs’ Alabama right-of-publicity claims, and summary judgment for Vintage was affirmed.


Allison v. Vintage Sports Plaques, 136 F.3d 1443 (11th Cir. 1998)