Naked Cowboy of Times Square Has a Right To Privacy, Just Like Woody Allen

Posted by Eriq Gardner

It's hardly an exaggeration to say that these days, the Naked Cowboy is as much a tourist attraction in New York as the Statue of Liberty. That statement might seem a bit of a stretch, but keep in mind that you need to take a boat and pay lots of money to go see the Statue of Liberty, whereas the Naked Cowboy is centrally located, pretty much free to see, and mentioned in every tourist guidebook.

So why would the Cowboy would sue the maker of M&M's for $6 million after it posted a Times Square billboard that allegedly violated his right of publicity and right of privacy? We're not sure, but if Woody Allen can win a suit like this, so too can the Naked Cowboy.

In a ruling yesterday in what the New York District Court called "The Case of The Naked Cowboy versus The Blue M&M," the lawsuit against Mars Inc. can continue. The judge threw out the rights of publicity claim—Mars did not use the guy's actual name (Robert Burck), the name of his character, his voice, or his actual photograph—but it allowed the privacy and false advertising claims to be challenged, saying the ad may have intimated that the Cowboy endorsed M&M's.

Read the decision for its discussion of Woody Allen case law on the subject.

Comments

[Geroge]

Do they even have cows in NYC?