Hollyweird is working for Washington, or does everyone really want to watch endless Hollywood “news” shows and procedural crime dramas or reality shows?
What would Edward R. Murrow think of scripted reality shows like the Kardashians or Jersey Shore or Faux News? If he complained today, they might tow his car and lock up his possessions in a unpaid storage locker, where the high bidder sells his stuff at his pawn shop.
(Hey! A new show! Zombie Towing/Pawn/Locker Wars/Stars!)

I’m not really sure how that would work.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/20471219474/wipo-is-quietly-signing-agreement-to-give-hollywood-stars-their-own-special-version-copyright.shtml

Katz not only accuses the blogger of cyber-bullying but he is suing her lawyers as well for $15,000.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/miami-heat-owner-suing-blogger-google-over-unflattering-photo

In your case of the basketball, it’s the commercial aspect from the sale of the basketball that is going to cause more problems.  If you’re just toting your basketball around you’re cool.

If you draw a photo of Jimi on your own guitar strap, you’re cool.  But, and this is key, it can’t look like any copyrighted photo of Jimi.  If Shepard Fairey had drawn that image of Obama a few years back without use of the photo from AP it would have been a moot point, but since it was proven to be derivative of a copyrighted work, trouble.  If Fairey had taken the original photo and made his drawing from that, there would have been no issues.

My example of Jimi’s likeness drawn on a guitar strap doesn’t necessarily imply that Jimi endorsed the product. I didn’t specify whether it could be a photo of Jimi taken while he was in public, so let’s assume it was. And I realize that this example is further complicated by the fact that he’s dead, and someone else is claiming rights to his likeness. (From my understanding, the rights to likeness of people after death varies from state to state.)

But let’s say someone takes a photo of this guy who owns the Heat, pastes it on a basketball and tries to sell it. Is it the commercial aspect that would (or should) be illegal, like all paparazzi photos, or some implied endorsement of the basketball?

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when one is in a venue like this.

Now, if they take that same photo and put it on a mug and use the phrase “Bruce loves the Yankees!” and sell it in the shop for twenty bucks, you’re implying something about The Boss AND trying to make a profit from it.  The first is a no-no, the second gets you into much deeper trouble.

Selling the likeness of someone gets you into trouble very quickly because they are owned much more clearly than people at a public event are.  You can show a photo of Leonard Nemoy drinking a Coke at Urban Outfitters but the minute you draw Spock with a Coke you better put your lawyer on speed dial.

TL;DR:  Good luck to this guy, I’m glad he found a lawyer willing to take his money.

He was more motivated by his skin condition, vitiligo, which causes a person to lose the brown pigment on their skin.  Naturally, this would also mean you would lose protection from the sun, and keeping covered when out is the most effective protection.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001834/