Hawaii
How Conrad v. Hurst applies in Hawaii: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Entertainment & Sports Law.
Hawaii courts follow a similar approach to California's right to publicity and related principles established in 'Conrad v. Hurst.' The state recognizes both the right to control the commercial use of one's name and likeness and the necessity of consent in such usage, especially within the entertainment industry.
In Hawaii, the right to publicity is protected under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-1, which asserts an individual's exclusive right to control commercial exploitation of their name, image, and likeness.
The court ruled that explicit consent is necessary for the commercial use of an individual’s likeness, reinforcing the right to publicity in Hawaii.
Held that the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes constitutes an invasion of privacy.
Recognized the importance of consent in using public figures' images, aligning Hawaii's standards with those articulated in Conrad v. Hurst.
Hawaii's approach to the right of publicity closely aligns with federal principles emerging from cases like 'Rogers v. Grimaldi,' emphasizing the importance of consent. However, Hawaii law places greater focus on personality rights akin to property rights, diverging from the less defined federal common law.
Understanding the right of publicity as influenced by 'Conrad v. Hurst' is crucial for the Hawaii bar exam, as candidates may encounter questions relating to consent, commercial exploitation, and privacy rights.