The New Hampshire House and Senate, after many months of careful deliberation and very hard work, passed Senate Bill 175, concerning a person’s right of publicity. The right of publicity in general permits people to control the use of their identity, image and name for commercial purposes. Who can seriously dispute that a company should not be able to use my identity in the promotion of its product without permission?

If David Ortiz has not endorsed a certain baseball bat, then a company cannot use his image to promote it. So confident were the House and Senate of the quality and integrity of the final product of their labors, both chambers passed the bill on overwhelming, bipartisan voice votes. Unfortunately, Gov. Lynch chose to veto the bill. His reasons for doing so, in my opinion, reflect a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue itself.

SB 175 does one thing and one thing only: it confirms that the already existing common law right to publicity in this state does not end when someone dies. This is not unusual. Many states recognize the right to publicity in common law or statute, and the posthumous, descendible right of publicity exists in some states for periods of up to 100 years after death. This bill breaks no new ground.

Somehow, from this simple premise, Gov. John Lynch inferred that SB 175 would put our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press in peril. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is puzzling that the governor would imagine so much danger in a measure that merely seeks to protect the already accepted rights of New Hampshire residents. Gov. Lynch said he vetoed the bill because it could have a “chilling effect” on journalistic and expressive works, and that there could potentially be a flood of litigation. Quite frankly, that is nonsense. It is well recognized — and the governor has conceded — that the right of publicity that exists in our common law is subject to the limitations imposed by the United States and New Hampshire constitutions. The First Amendment is alive and well. In the many years that this common law right has existed in New Hampshire, has there been a chilling effect of any kind on our media? Surely not. The Concord Monitor does not appear to have been intimidated in its recent posting of unflattering cartoons of House Speaker William O’Brien. The Union Leader has never been shy about criticizing people with whom it takes issue. The explosion of blogs and websites has certainly not been chilled by the existing right, nor has there been a flood — or even a trickle — of litigation.

There are absolutely no free speech restrictions in SB 175, and it is obvious that no statute can infringe upon our constitutional rights. Further, the complaints that SB 175 lacks blanket exemptions for media companies are illogical. No media company has ever sought legislative exemptions to New Hampshire’s common law because they know exemptions are unnecessary in view of the constitutional protections. SB 175 does not alter these protections; in fact, it explicitly states that they are to remain in full effect! Finally, the governor said he was concerned about retroactive litigation. This is a misreading of the bill. SB 175 does not allow for retroactive litigation.

There have been suggestions that this bill is mainly for the Salinger family. Again, this is obfuscation. This bill does not bear the Salinger name and it is not just about my family, any more than the bills in the 20 or so other states that have enacted such legislation were about my father or my family. In New Hampshire, as in the other states that have already seen the wisdom of protecting individual rights in this way, it should be seen as a general good, and in keeping with its values. My family requested this bill because of our concerns over images of my father that have appeared, without our consent, on items such as coffee mugs and T-shirts. This bill is about protecting family property rights, no matter if you are an author, an artist, a sports figure, or an inventor. Stealing is wrong, and this bill will prevent stealing. All families should be able to protect the privacy of a deceased family member. It is my hope that the New Hampshire Legislature will support its own diligent efforts, repeat its earlier overwhelming votes in favor of SB 175, and overturn Gov. Lynch’s veto.

Matt Salinger is the son of the late author J.D. Salinger, who lived in Cornish.