Angry in the Great White North

With regards to this insightful post on Right on Course, reader Ron left this comment:

I have read 2 or 3 articles and some blogs on this and nowhere does anyone explain the term "this time for misappropriation of personality." -- What does this mean? What did the Liberals do to earn this charge? Anyone? Anyone? --

Good point, Ron.  I happen to know, but I didn't realize that it was not common knowledge, so I'll explain.

Misappropriation of personality refers to taking someone's image and using it for financial gain.  So if sold widgets, and tried to boost sales by putting Bono's face on the packaging, I could be subjected to a lawsuit for misappropriation of personality for having used Bono's picture without permission.

It does not mean using a publicly available image in a news story or in an editorial, for example.  There has to be a commercial or financial element to support the charge.

As it is, the Liberals used an image of Stephen Harper in fundraising materials.  The allegation is based on the premise that the Liberals used Stephen Harper's image, without permission, in an attempt to improve their financial position by boosting donations.

A court will decide if that counts as a misappropriation of personality.

I haven't seen the material myself.  I don't think it was the periodic emails that the Liberals send out.  I've gone back through them, and none of them have Stephen Harper's image.  Stephen Harper's image does show up in e-newsletters, but as I understand the law, that's OK.  I'm going to assume that the fundraising material was some sort of mail-out that directly linked the Chuck Cadman affair to the need for more funds to fight the Conservatives in an election.  If Stephen Harper's image was used, that could be a misappropriation of personality.

So now you know.