Chuck Yeager Sues Virgin Airlines

Courthouse News Service ^ | Wednesday, December 30, 2009 | DAVE TARTRE

[Paleo Conservative]

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - Chuck Yeager says Virgin America used his name without permission in a mass mailer advertising its in-flight WiFi service. Yeager, 86, the first pilot to break the sound barrier, seeks punitive damages for unjust enrichment and violation of his publicity rights.

In his Superior Court complaint, Yeager cites a Virgin press release that he says was "widely distributed ... to several thousand people - if not hundreds of thousands of people." It states, in part: "Not unlike Buzz Aldrin or Chuck Yeager, you have the opportunity to be a part of a monumental moment in air travel. The communication highway now has wings with in-flight WiFi at every seat ..." Yeager, a retired general, says he "rarely, if ever, permits his name, image or other publicity rights to be used by private companies, or to associate with commercial products or services in the aviation industry, because that is the industry in which General Yeager has spent his entire 65-year career and has achieved so many accomplishments. Should a private company in that industry request the widespread commercial use of General Yeager's name or other publicity rights, General Yeager would carefully evaluate the company, product and/or service to be advertised, and if he were to agree to permit the requested use, he would require a payment commensurate with the value of his publicity rights in that industry - a substantial sum."

Yeager is represented by Charles Harder with Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro of Los Angeles.

[vetvetdoug]

I was reared on USAF bases. General Yeager is one of my heroes. He was one when he was at Edwards AFB and is still one. When I joined the USAF, he was still active and was revered and spoke about positively by most of the airmen that knew him. Yeager has a beef and IMO this is just a minor spat.

[PAR35]

When you're famous, you don't have the right to say your name can't ever be mentioned.

Try using MLK's name commerically, and see how fast you draw a lawsuit.

The technical ground for the suit would fall under invasion of privacy.

There's an article that might be useful to lay folks here: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another

[The Gent]

The technical ground for the suit would fall under invasion of privacy.

Invasion of privacy? That is stretching it.

The reflex reaction of wanting to sue everyone seems to not be limited to those who spill hot coffee in their lap.

A total waste of time and money. The lawsuit should be thrown out as frivolous and Chuck should be billed for the cost to the court and Virgin's legal representation.

[dead]

Thanks for the link to that web page. It was very interesting and basically confirmed my point regarding this case.

Fortunately, the law does not give individuals the right to stop all mention, discussion, or reporting on their lives or activities. The common law of most states creates an exception to liability for news reporting and commentary on matters of public interest, and many state statutes explicitly exempt news reporting and other expressive activities from liability.

Yeager's name was casually mentioned in a press release (not an advertisement.) It made reference to his newsworthy accomplishments and made no suggestion of an endorsement for this product.

He's an alltime great American, but he has no case here.

[NonValueAdded]

Sorry Chuck, I don’t think you have a case here. If anything, YOU are diminishing your brand by appearing petty and grasping.

[Tribune7]

Did Paramount Pictures pay him for the use of his image in the opening credits of Enterprise?

Or ask his permission? I don't know. But there are different standards regarding free speech for art and advertising.

I don't think Yeager is being petty or that this is about money, btw.

[freedumb2003]

History cannot be copyrighted. They implied no endorsement.

Yeager will lose this one.

[valkyry1]

//There are bold pilots,
There are old pilots,
But there are no old, bold pilots//

I think there has been many exceptions to that rule!

[tanknetter]

That's what I thought initially. But then I thought that Virgin could have used the generic terms astronauts and test pilots instead, and as others have mentioned, they used Aldrin rather than Armstrong. Perhaps Yeager does have a case after all.

My belief is that they could have used Armstrong, legally, and that they didn't is due to some other factor.

One possibility is that Armstrong, while not the "recluse" he's often portrayed as being, actively shuns the spotlight when it comes to his fame at being the first man to walk on the moon, and Virgin might just be respecting that (the Hand of Sir Richard at work, perhaps?). Aldrin doesn't shun the spotlight, nor does Yeager. Unless Aldrin signed off on having his name used, he should have just as strong (or weak) a case as Yeager does.

[PAR35]

If I was in-house for the defendant, I’d try to get it settled for an apology from the CEO and the ad agency, and a tax deductible contribution to the charity of Yeager’s choice. That would be a lot cheaper than litigating it.

[dead]

Absolutely. They’ll pay something just to make it go away. Lawyers cost too much.

[PAR35]

Yeager's name was casually mentioned in a press release (not an advertisement.)

I can just go from what I read:

"mass mailer advertising"

Any links you have to information that supports your position would be appreciated.

[eartrumpet]

“Yeager is a cross dresser

You mean to tell me that in secret he wears Army uniforms???!!! :O

The Horror!!! “

He did publicly, for several years.

[jla]

LOL

[antiRepublicrat]

Virgin is mentioning his name in a historical context. His name is mixed with another pioneer to support the historical context. I can’t see much Yeager can do about it. You don’t have complete control of your name when you’re in the history books, otherwise you’d effectively be able to censor history.

But if Virgin is smart they’ll try to come to an amicable agreement. You don’t want to be the airline that beat down an aviation hero in court.

[AFreeBird]

It’s not uncommon for airports, or parts thereof, to be named after pioneers of aviation.

[blackbart.223]

"The REAL first lady of aviation."

Amen.

[Seaplaner]

El Rushbo, you da man!

Glad the procedure went well, and you are well.

(I'm also happy that you did not need to wait in a line for hours to see a nurse practitioner before getting treatment.)

Re our current medical care in this great country...as Ms Napalitano might say... the system works!

.

[Leisler]

The name, reputation, image, reputation in commercial commerce belongs to General Yeager. The ADVERTIZEMENT is not a history text.

Commercial speech has no right to specific persons not with expired copyrights, which I believe are something like over fifty years now.

Try using the name Elvis Presley in selling something and then check your mail.

[freedumb2003]

>>The name, reputation, image, reputation in commercial commerce belongs to General Yeager. The ADVERTIZEMENT is not a history text.

Commercial speech has no right to specific persons not with expired copyrights, which I believe are something like over fifty years now.

Try using the name Elvis Presley in selling something and then check your mail.<<

We’ll see, but I am pretty sure I am right. For example, you could do an advertisement that said “in 1959, Elvis gave blood” and probably be OK. That is what is happening here.

But you never know how the courts will interpret things. As someone pointed out, they didn’t use Armstrong in the reference, so maybe they were afraid and thought they could slip in Yeager’s name...