While I did think of Lohan when I first saw the ad, I thought it was fair use of her name under the same exception that allows Letterman, Leno, Stewart & Colbert to make fun of celebrities for fun and profit. It clearly was not using her name and likeness as an endorsement of e-trade; it was just a subtle, albeit gratuitous, dig at a celebrity. Lohan doesn’t have a case, IMHO.
That’s different, though. Letterman, Stewart et al aren’t shilling products. There is no “fair use” clause in advertising.
What are you talking about? In what universe is the Harvard graduate Natalie Portman in similar troubles as coke addict Lindsay Lohan?
Nothing. Aceplace57 got her confused with Natalie Portman. He corrected himself in post #19.
A poor choice of words on my part. Instead of “fair use” I should’ve said allowable use or non-actionable use. While I did think of Lohan when I saw the commercial, the mention of the name was clearly meant as a mere joke and was nebulous enough not to be actionable.
Isn’t/wasn’t it common practice for movie studios to find a person with the same names as important characters in movies and pay them a stipend for use of the name? Later they could defend themselves from lawsuits by saying, “nah, it was based on the other Waldo Shemp”.