that may properly be decided as a matter of law. IV. Analysis J. Thomas McCarthy, the leading commentator on the right of publicity, has characterized the determination of the right’s duration as “by nature almost arbitrary.” 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, Rights of Publicity & Privacy § 9:16 (2d ed. 2012) (henceforth, “McCarthy”). An “almost arbitrary” ruling is unacceptable, however. The following analysis seeks to avoid one. A. New Jersey Law Determines the Duration of the New Jersey Right of Publicity The right of publicity is a property right under both New Jersey common law and California statutory law. McFarland v. Miller, 14 F.3d 912, 917 (3d Cir.1994) (“In New Jersey, the right of publicity is a property right.”); Estate of Presley v. Russen, 513 F.Supp. 1339, 1355 (D.N.J. 1981) (<HOLDING>); Cal. Civ.Code § 3344.1(b) (“The rights
holding that the defendants use of a models likeness in connection with the packaging and promotion of its hair care product violated the right of publicity holding that a change of venue was not warranted due to publicity surrounding an unrelated murder with common features because the defendant failed to establish any specific prejudice against him as a result of the publicity holding that the defendants use of players likenesses in parody trading cards violated the right of publicity holding that the district court should have engaged in a more detailed inquiry when pretrial publicity was vast a third of potential jurors had an opinion about the guilt of the defendant and all jurors selected had been exposed to pretrial publicity holding that the right of publicity is descendible