Rapper and actor Curtis Jackson III, more commonly known by his stage name 50 Cent, is in the midst of a complicated legal attempt to prevent the use of his image and likeness in an upcoming horror movie. The film in question, "Skill House," contains a brief appearance from Jackson that his attorney claims may harm his well-established and carefully maintained reputation in the entertainment industry. These assertions have generated legal buzz and disagreement, turning Jackson's case into a high-profile study of the intricacy and complexity of the right of publicity.
What is the Right of Publicity?
The right of publicity aims to give individuals control over how their name, image, and likeness are commercialized. While many are familiar with these three terms in the context of the newly established system of "NIL payments" for collegiate athletics, they apply to a wide range of legal scenarios outside the sporting world. In fact, any attempt to profit from unauthorized use or misappropriation of an individual's likeness can be challenged under the right of publicity. Unlike copyright law, which protects creative output, the right of publicity exists as a set of automatically ensured protections that allows individuals to ensure that they are not being misrepresented or unduly portrayed without appropriate compensation and consent.
50 Cent's Legal Claims
In the lawsuit, Jackson v. Kavanaugh, No. 2:25-cv-03623 (C.D. Cal.), Jackson asserts three main arguments against Defendants, film financier and producer Ryan Kavanaugh, Skill House Movie LLC, and startup streaming platform GenTV.
First, Jackson and his counsel have asserted that the parties never reached a final agreement or signed a contract regarding his appearance in the movie Skill House. Although Jackson did agree to film a small set of scenes for the film, he asserts that contract negotiations screeched to a halt in their final stages and ultimately stalled out entirely.
Second, Jackson argues his appearance in the film will harm his reputation in the entertainment industry.
Finally, Jackson's counsel claims that a false association of Jackson with the streaming service GenTV, which aired an early preview of the movie, could have a negative impact on Jackson's own streaming channel, 50 Cent Action.
Because of the lack of a clearly defined contractual agreement and potential reputational and financial harm, Jackson argues that Defendants must be held liable for a litany of potentially irreparable damages.
Potential Legal Roadblocks
Due to the complex legal overlap between the right of publicity and freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment, cases involving infringement of one's name or likeness often carry a heavy burden of proof. Plaintiffs in right of publicity cases must prove that the use of their likeness was the direct cause of some tangible damage. However, a direct causal link between a potential violation and reputational or financial harm can be difficult to prove.
50 Cent's case exemplifies these difficulties. To successfully state a right of publicity claim, Jackson must demonstrate that his appearance in Skill House will harm his reputation in the entertainment space, draw potential customers away from Jackson's own streaming service, or otherwise cause him financial or reputational harm. Given that the Defendants assert that Jackson was compensated for his appearance, and that the impact on Jackson's own streaming service is speculative, it will be difficult to present concrete proof of financial harm.
Indeed, the judge assigned to the action, the Honorable Hernan D. Vera, has expressed skepticism regarding the assertion that Jackson's appearance in Skill House meaningfully violates any sort of celebrity image rights. While it may be that Jackson no longer desires to appear in the film, his initial willingness to do so and subsequent engagement in lengthy contract negotiations cut against his claims.
What Does 50 Cent's Case Mean for the Right of Publicity?
Cases such as Jackson's illustrate the difficulties that can be involved in protecting one's name, image, and likeness from potential unauthorized or unwanted use in works of creative expression. Jackson's case specifically illustrates the challenges of proving the existence of reputational damages: simply contending that a creative product in which an individual appears is sub-par is likely not enough to establish legal liability for a right of publicity violation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
