ers.VThe First Amendment concerns raised by White are evenmore pressing here. White was an advertisement and thereforesubject to the less demanding commercial speech standard ofCentral Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm.,447 U.S. 557, 561-63 (1980). Here, the portrayal of theCheers characters is core protected speech: Using Norm andCliff dummies in a Cheers-themed bar is a dramatic presenta-tion.8 It's like a play. Cheers may not have the social impactof Hair, see Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420U.S. 546 (1975), but it's a literary work nonetheless, worthyof the highest First Amendment protection from intrusivestate laws like California's right-of-publicity statute. SeeCardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 95F.3d 959, 970-72 (10th Cir. 1996). Host did not plasterWendt's face on a billboard with a Budweiser logo. It cashedin on the Cheers goodwill by creatively putting its familiarmise-en-scene to work. The robots are a new derivation of acopyrighted work, not unlike a TV series based on a movie or_________________________________________________________________8 No doubt the decision to put animatronic Norm and Cliff figures in thebars was profit-driven. But that doesn't mean Central Hudson applies: TheSupreme Court limits the outhouse of commercial speech to pureadvertising--speech that does no more than propose a commercial trans-action. Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens ConsumerCouncil, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976); Nordyke v. Santa Clara County,110 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1997); Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Base-ball Players Ass'n, 95 F.3d 959, 970 (10th Cir. 1996). 14909a Broadway play based on a novel. The novelty of using ani-matronic figures based on TV characters ought to prick up ourears to First Amendment concerns. Instead we again let theright of publicity snuff out creativity.VIAs I noted in White, "No California statute, no Califo...
