As for odd-ball claims against Jack, I think you are correct, tough to make them stick. Still with some of the attribution ideas floating about, do you think someone will say that the use somehow harms the author of the films? Again oddball, but I won’t be too surprised when someone (yes when as I think it is a matter of time for this claim to be brought) makes the claim.

I just meant that it doesn’t seem like a strong infringement claim. It sounds like you agree.

Re: right of publicity, I was trying to figure out how else the ad could create liability. I.e., if someone else had made the ad, Nicholson might have a claim. But he made the ad, so that’s a non-issue.

I said “I’m not saying they should or that they have a good claim but that has not stopped such acts before.” So what are you getting at? What do you mean by unlikely?

Are you saying that if a non-celebrity made a similar mash up, the studios would be OK with it so the infringement claim is unlikely? Given the tendency to enforce like mad, I think they would at least hand wring and likely send a C&D. Furthermore, there is an irony in that Nicholson might want to stop such an ad made by someone else and ask for help from studios. His claim may have more merit as you note because of someone else using his image to make a statement. But just because he is OK with using his image of himself does not mean that studios would be happy about him using the clips. Last even if the suit would not have much luck, one point is that studios may want to attack anyway but stay their hands because it is Nicholson. If Nicholson’s people obtained clearances that would be interesting in of itself in a Jim Gibson Risk Aversion and Rights Accretion in Intellectual Property Law, 116 Yale L.J.882 (2007) way.