Consulting For Entertainment Weekly
According to the contract that was singed by Disney´s agent and by Ms. Peggy as the singer of the film the Lady and the tramp; Ms. Peggy was going to be paid for her work with $3.500 besides residual payments at 12.5% of the sales of the movies; meaning this, that Ms. Peggy was giving her permission to use her voice as a commercial issue of that movie to Disney, giving them also the rights to distribute the film to any other technology yet to be invented (just like we can see now DVD, Blue Ray, and even VCR by that time. In this order of ideas, and given that one of the kinds of violation of privacy is to use the name, likeness, or even the voice of somebody in commercial facts without consent, we can say that there is not such a thing of privacy but even when Ms. Peggy allowed Disney to use her voice to get the film better so they could get more sales from it. In this order of ideas, Ms Peggy can´t claim anything to Disney about violation of privacy because there was not such a thing.
As we saw at (California Civil Code 3344):
“Unauthorized commercial use of name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness
(a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof”
Or at case Lugosi, v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal. 3d 813 (1979); or at case Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F. 2d 460, 463 (1988)
A violation of privacy is a tough thing to deal with, but this is not the case in my point of view.
For the question about which kind of violation of privacy, could Ms Peggy claim of, is:
The type of invasion of privacy we could apply to this case is the commercial appropriate of one´s name or likeness.
But I must say that in my opinion that is not a privacy case, it is a non-completion of contract like in case Hochster v De La Tour (1853) 2 E&B 678 or other many cases.
