## Facts

- Bi-Rite Enterprises, Inc. (Illinois) and Artemis, Inc. (Connecticut) manufactured and distributed novelty merchandise, including posters.
- Fourteen British performers (members of Judas Priest, Duran Duran, and Iron Maiden) licensed the commercial use of their names and likenesses in the United States through a U.S. merchandising representative (a Georgia company).
- Through that licensing structure, Bi-Rite and Artemis held exclusive rights to produce and distribute posters depicting the performers.
- Bruce Miner and Bruce Miner Co., Inc. (Massachusetts) distributed posters depicting the performers without obtaining licenses from the performers or their representatives.
- Defendants asserted the posters were manufactured abroad from publicity photographs lawfully obtained by European manufacturers.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring defendants from distributing (1) posters covered by plaintiffs’ exclusive licenses and (2) posters depicting the individual performer-plaintiffs.
- A conflict of laws mattered because Great Britain did not recognize a proprietary right to control commercial exploitation of one’s name or likeness, while relevant U.S. jurisdictions did.

## Issues

1. Under Massachusetts choice-of-law principles, are rights relating to commercial exploitation of a person’s name or likeness governed by the law of the person’s domicile (Great Britain) or by the law of U.S. jurisdictions connected to the licensing and exploitation?

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- Massachusetts choice-of-law principles supported applying the law of the U.S. jurisdictions connected to the licensing, distribution, and alleged wrong, rather than the performers’ domicile.
- Because the governing U.S. law recognized a licensable right of publicity, plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success warranting preliminary injunctive relief against unlicensed poster distribution.

## Legal Principles

- Under Massachusetts choice-of-law analysis for name-and-likeness exploitation, the governing law is not necessarily the law of the individual’s domicile; it may be the law of the jurisdiction(s) with the most significant relationship to the commercial exploitation and the alleged misconduct.
- Where the relevant jurisdiction recognizes a right of publicity, that right may be commercially licensed on an exclusive basis and enforced against unauthorized merchandising.
- In the preliminary-injunction context, ongoing unlicensed commercial exploitation of protected publicity interests can support findings of likely success and irreparable harm sufficient to restrain distribution pending final adjudication.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a preliminary injunction preventing a Massachusetts poster distributor from selling unlicensed posters of British performers, holding that Massachusetts choice-of-law principles favored applying U.S. publicity-rights law tied to the licensing and U.S. exploitation rather than the performers’ British domicile law that would deny the claimed rights.


Bi-Rite Enters., Inc. v. Bruce Miner Co., 757 F.2d 440 (1st Cir. 1985)