But Plaintiff offers no legal authority supporting the conclusion that Defendants' conduct in some way endows him with exclusive rights to the words spoken. If someone present creates a record of what was said, the physical means they employ to do so—whether written notes or electronic device—would have a tangible existence that could be appropriate for replevin.But the means of preservation are distinct from the words themselves. Peruto further argues that, even if he cannot claim an exclusive right to words spoken in the presence of others, his voice is uniquely his, and Defendants cannot appropriate the sound of his voice in their documentary.Although Plaintiff might argue that the release has limited applicability, his having signed it certainly forfeits any claim of exclusivity as to the sound of his voice….
He claims that his "oral communications" constituted his property, which Defendants "illegally obtained and made permanent as 'digitized communications.'" He appears to argue that the act of (purportedly) unlawful recording is what gives rise to the ownership interest he asserts. Once words have been expressed to another, the speaker would seem to have forfeited the exclusive right to "possess" them, as they then exist in both parties' memories.
The computer data and digital files containing the recording of Peruto's oral communications are therefore unable to support a replevin action….[4.] Even if Mr.