You are incorrect. It applies just as much to John Doe as it does to the best known celebrities.
If that's the case, it will never hold up on appeal. There's a huge demand for protection from overly aggressive sellers of personal information, but there's also 200+ years of legal protections for literature. If the legislatures were careful, they'd create latitude for the one while crafting legislature for the other. If not, then the entire legislation will eventually go down the tubes.
In other words, there is no requirement that the plaintiff has commercially exploited his name, the plaintiff need not be a celebrity.
If that's the case, then there is NO legal basis for either works of literature or fact based reporting. Either everything is a fluff piece or it's flat-out against the law.
If I have to get legal authorization for every single John J. Smith in the entire continental U.S., or anyone who has ever visited or lived there before I can legally publish a book, then no books will ever be written in the future. Somehow, as ineffective as most politicians are, I doubt any of that are that ignorant of the existing legal precedents!
I know you don't do this, but at least one other author who posted on this thread mentioned doing so.
No, I very much use 'real names' if it fits a story, however, none of those characters are based on anyone, either real or imagined. Instead I pick names arbitrarily, and I create characters from a variety of characters to highlight certain characteristics.
I understand why there's a need for such laws, but if this law is as broad as you're insisting it is, it won't last longer than a year or two, at the utmost.
Actually, they might. California has a personal right of publicity that gives individuals a property right in their name and image.
You're confusing the right to personal privacy with copyright law, assuming that anyone can copyright their names without first having to convince a judge there's a legal basis to grant a copyright in the first place. Again, there's ZERO basis for such a law in legal precedent!
I'm not too sure, but I think it may have been in Canada, and the laws were such that the local firm's registered business name was close enough the international firm couldn't use their name in the anywhere in the province because the local guy had the name tied up.
It doesn't really matter where it was as those are standard copyright restrictions. Apple is currently fighting for the name "iPhone" in China, because another company copyrighted the name years ago in a local province--despite "iPhone" have NO meaning of any kind in Chinese! But you can't demand the retroactive implementation of copyright over existing legal businesses. But again, that's copyright law and not privacy law (which is an entirely new field). In such cases, existing law always takes precedence over new, largely undefined laws!
Frankly, DS, I don't care what you read on the 'internet', but you're conflating different laws which have no basis on each other. Privacy concerns individuals access to their own information, while copyright restricts who can use corporate names. You don't seem to understand the limits of either law, so until I can read the bill once it's officially the law of the land, I'm skeptical of your supposed claims.