## Facts

- Rudolph Valentino (Rudolpho Guglielmi) was a famous silent-film actor who generated commercial value in his identity through his performances; he died in 1926.
- Jean Guglielmi alleged he was Valentino’s nephew and heir and claimed he inherited Valentino’s “right of publicity,” including exclusive control over Valentino’s name, likeness, and personality.
- Defendants produced and televised a film on ABC titled *Legend of Valentino: A Romantic Fiction* (1975).
- The complaint alleged the film used Valentino’s name, likeness, and personality, but was a fictionalized portrayal of his life and loves.
- The complaint also alleged defendants used Valentino’s identity in advertising and promotion to obtain sponsorship and viewers.
- Plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief for post-mortem misappropriation of Valentino’s asserted right of publicity.
- The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend; when plaintiff refused to amend, the action was dismissed.

## Issues

1. Whether California common law recognizes a post-mortem right of publicity that survives death and descends to heirs.
2. Whether use of a deceased celebrity’s identity in a fictionalized film and related promotion can support a right-of-publicity claim.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
- Applying its companion decision, the court held the right of publicity is not descendible and expires upon the individual’s death.
- Because any publicity right ended at Valentino’s death, plaintiff could not state a cause of action as an heir based on the film or its promotion.
- Concurring justices agreed in the judgment; a concurrence emphasized constitutional protection for expressive works such as films, and treated promotion of the film as incidental to distributing protected expression.

## Legal Principles

- California common law protects against unauthorized use of a person’s name, likeness, or personality during life, but the right of publicity is not descendible and terminates upon death.
- Expressive works (including motion pictures and television films) about public figures receive strong constitutional protection even when sold or exhibited for profit.
- Publicity-based liability is most plausible for uses functioning as advertising or merchandising of unrelated goods; identifying and promoting an expressive work itself is generally protected where it is incidental to dissemination of that work.

## Conclusion

The court held that an heir could not sue for alleged misappropriation of Rudolph Valentino’s persona because, under California common law at the time, the right of publicity ended at death and did not pass to successors.


Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods., 25 Cal. 3d 860, 603 P.2d 454, 160 Cal. Rptr. 352 (Cal. 1979)