Quote -
Good thing that nothing like this has ever happened.  In spite of considerable forum speculation dedicated to building such imaginary scenarios for us over the years.

When it comes to basic concepts, the RIAA disagrees with you. They've managed to make quite a tidy sum when it comes to extracting some rather painful settlements without so much as a court filing. Come to think of it, so has the MPAA.

IF you want to flirt with such a scenario, go right ahead ;)

Quote - The law on such matters is never as cut-'n-dried as many people would like to make it out to be.

It all depends on context. You also keep attempting to muddy up that context with tangents and semi-relevant (and sometimes irrelevant) scenarios, then claim it's all too fuzzy to tell.

Personally, and professionally (after all these are business transactions), unless you have gonads of uranium (and brains to match), you'd probably be better off steering clear of any potential legal harm - at least until you can afford bigger lawyers than anyone you might offend on a civil tort level. Political figures are pretty much clear for blatantly obvious reasons. Celebrities OTOH? Hey - it's your finances.

Quote - A website dedicated to the mockery of Tom Cruise as an individual gets away with it -- but a website named "EverybodyHatesBillSmith.com" would be a definite cause for legal action.....perhaps even for criminal action.

You're confusing the issue... again. Nobody is making a non-political and purely commercial profit off of Tom Cruises' likeness or name. That's all done in the context of opinion, parody, and/or half a dozen other perfectly legal avenues of expressing free speech. If anything, such sites have a bigger chance of running afoul against libel laws than they do of copyright or trademark violations.

The tangent has nothing to do with selling on a celebrity's likeness or name in a purely commercial setting.

/P