Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Decision Date | 13 September 2001 |
Docket Number | DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,00-55834,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,Nos. 00-55363,s. 00-55363 |
Citation | 265 F.3d 994 |
Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) GEORGE DOWNING, AN INDIVIDUAL; PAUL STRAUCH, AN INDIVIDUAL; RICK STEERE, AN INDIVIDUAL; RICHARD BUFFALO KEAULANA, AN INDIVIDUAL; BEN AIPA, AN INDIVIDUAL; MIKE DOYLE, AN INDIVIDUAL; JOEY CABELL, AN INDIVIDUAL,, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH, AN OHIO CORPORATION, |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Brent H. Blakely, Manhattan Beach, California, for the appellants.
Joel McCabe Smith and David Aronoff, Leopold, Petrich & Smith, P.C., Los Angeles, California, for the appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-99-04612-MLR
Before: Procter Hug, Jr. and Betty B. Fletcher, Circuit Judges, and Samuel P. King, District Judge.*
Opinion by Judge Hug
Appellants brought this diversity action against Abercrombie and Fitch ("Abercrombie") for publishing a photograph of them, with identification of their names, for Abercrombie's commercial benefit without the Appellants' authorization. They allege a violation of California's common law and statutory prohibition against misappropriation of a person's name and likeness for commercial purposes, a violation of the Lanham Act for confusion and deception indicating sponsorship of Abercrombie goods, and a claim for negligence and defamation. The district court entered summary judgment for Abercrombie, holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment, and those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act; that Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims; that the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine; and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negligence or defamation claims. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. We reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for trial.
Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The upscale retailer sells casual apparel for men and women, including shirts, khakis, jeans, and outerwear. In addition to sales in approximately 200 stores nationwide, Abercrombie also sells merchandise through its subscription catalog, the "Abercrombie and Fitch Quarterly" ("Quarterly").
The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. It accounts for approximately 80% of Abercrombie's overall advertising budget. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle, back to school, or winter wear. The Quarterly contains photographs of models wearing Abercrombie's garments as well as pictures of the clothing displayed for sale. In addition, approximately one-quarter of each issue is devoted to stories, news and other editorial pieces.
In 1998, Michael Jeffries, Abercrombie's CEO, developed a surfing theme for the upcoming Quarterly. Abercrombie held the photo shoot for the upcoming issue at San Onofre Beach, California. While at the photo shoot, Abercrombie employees Sam Shahid and Savas Abadsidis looked through a compilation of surfing photographs by surf photographer LeRoy Grannis. The photo book contained a picture of Appellants which Grannis had taken at the 1965 Makaha International Surf Championship in Hawaii. Sam Shahid purchased the photograph, along with three other photographs from the book, for $100 each. LeRoy Grannis then handwrote the names of Appellants at the bottom of the photograph.
Subsequently, Sam Shahid showed Appellants' photograph to Jeffries who decided to use the photograph in the upcoming Quarterly. Abercrombie did not obtain Appellants' permission. Jeffries also decided to create t-shirts, exactly like those worn by the Appellants in the photograph, for sale in the upcoming issue. Abercrombie labeled the t-shirts"Final Heat Tees." The t-shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly.
The Spring 1999 Quarterly, "Spring Fever," contains a section entitled "Surf Nekkid." The "Surf Nekkid" section includes an article recounting the history of surfing. Abercrombie also included a 700-word story, entitled"Your Beach Should Be This Cool," describing the history of Old Man's Beach at San Onofre, California. The following page exhibits the photograph of Appellants. The two pages immediately thereafter feature the "Final Heat Tees."
The "Spring Fever" issue contains other articles about the surfing lifestyle. An article entitled "Beachcombing" documents the efforts of the Surfrider Foundation, an ecological group founded by surfers. Still another article entitled "Where the Wild Things Are," written by the editor of Surfer Magazine, describes various surfer "types." Also contained in the issue is an interview of Nat Young, former world surfing champion and the first professional surfer. The interview is accompanied by photographs of Young and his son wearing Abercrombie clothing.
On April 28, 1999, Appellants George Downing, Paul Strauch, Rick Steere, Richard Buffalo Keaulana, and Ben Aipa filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appellants later amended the complaint to add Joey Cabell and Mike Doyle. Appellants alleged that Abercrombie misappropriated their names and likenesses in violation of California's statutory and common law protections against commercial misappropriation, that the publication of the photograph in the catalog violated the Lanham Act and they alleged claims for negligence and defamation. Subsequently, Appellants and Abercrombie both filed motions for summary judgment. The district court entered summary judgment for Abercrombie. Appellants timely appealed. Abercrombie then filed a motion for attorneys' fees and other expenses. The district court granted the motion, awarding Abercrombie approximately one-fourth of the attorneys' fees that it sought. Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal from that order. We consolidated the two appeals.
On appeal, Appellants contend: (1) Abercrombie's use of the photograph is not protected under the First Amendment; (2) the state law publicity claims are not preempted by the Copyright Act; (3) California law is the proper choice of law for the claim under California Civil Code §§ 3344; (4) triable issues of fact exist with regard to the Lanham Act claims; (5) triable issues of fact exist with regard to the defamation claim; (6) the district court erred in denying the motion for a continuance; (7) the district court erred in awarding attorneys' fees and costs to Abercrombie.1
The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 2000). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
The district court concluded that Abercrombie's use of the photograph containing Appellants' names and likenesses was proper because it constituted expression protected under the First Amendment. We disagree.
California has long recognized a common law right of privacy for protection of a person's name and likeness against appropriation by others for their advantage. See Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 3d 409, 416 (Ct. App. 1983). To sustain a common law cause of action for commercial misappropriation, a plaintiff must prove: "(1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury." Id. at 417, 198 Cal.Rptr. 342.
In addition to the common law cause of action, California has provided a statutory remedy for commercial misappropriation under California Civil Code § 3344. The remedies provided for under California Civil Code § 3344 complement the common law cause of action; they do not replace or codify the common law. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co. , 157 F.3d 686, 691-92 (9th Cir. 1998). Section 3344 provides in relevant part, "any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner . . . for purposes of advertising . . . without such person's prior consent . . . shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person." Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a). Under section 3344, a plaintiff must prove all the elements of the common law cause of action. In addition, the plaintiff must allege a knowing use by the defendant as well as a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose. See Eastwood, 149 Cal. App. 3d at 417.
Under both the common law cause of action and the statutory cause of action "no cause of action will lie for the publication of matters in the public interest, which rests on the right of the public to know and the freedom of the press to tell it." Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 34 Cal. App. 4th 790, 793 (Ct. App. 1995). This First Amendment defense extends "to almost all reporting of recent events," as well as to publications about "people who, by their accomplishments, mode of living, professional standing or calling, create a legitimate and widespread attention to their activities. " Eastwood, 149 Cal. App....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Upper Deck Co. v. Panini Am., Inc., Case No.: 20cv185-GPC(KSC)
...care;7. defendant's intent on selecting the plaintiff; and8. likelihood of expansion of the product lines. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch , 265 F.3d 994, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 2001). "Although these are all factors that are appropriate for consideration in determining the likelihood of confusio......
-
Fraley v. Facebook, Inc
...§§ 2510, et seq., even though dismissal was warranted for failure to state a claim for relief thereunder); cf. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.2001) (exercising jurisdiction over surfer's § 3344 claim against clothing retailer). Furthermore, Plaintiffs' alleged injury ......
-
Garcia v. Google, Inc.
...voice is analogous to her image, which we've said “is not a work of authorship” under the Copyright Act. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir.2001). But that doesn't answer the question of whether the artist's creativity, expressed through her voice or image, is prote......
-
Christoff v. Nestlé USA, Inc.
...very identity or persona of the plaintiff as a human being,'" not the particular photograph of the plaintiff. (Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch (9th Cir.2001) 265 F.3d 994, 1004, quoting McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy (1997) § 11.13[C] at 11-72-73; see also KNB Enterprises v. Matth......
-
Native Advertising: The Old Is New Again
...Jeweler Magazine, based on information supplied by the advertiser, was not commercial speech); Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (unauthorized use of photograph of surfer in a "magalog" actionable); Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., [cite], 7th Circuit (2014)......
-
KMT's David Klein And Neil Asnen Discuss LinkedIn Class Action Suit With E-Commerce Law Reports
...written and accessible online. Abdul-Jabbar v. Gen. Motors Corp., 85 F.2d 407, 414 (9th Cir. 1996). 2. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994. 1001 (9th Cir. 2001). 3. Cal. Civ. Code § Source: E-Commerce Law Reports, Vol. 15, Issue 6 The content of this article is intended to prov......
-
8th Circuit Clarifies Reach Of Copyright Act In Preempting Right Of Publicity Claims
...likenesses," which are "not a work of authorship within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 102." See, e.g., Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. For example, in Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), which involved the use of photographs ......
-
The Right Of Publicity In The AI Age
...Rights Law as an aspect of the right of privacy") (internal quotations and citations omitted). 10. See Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Souza, 68 F.4th at 121 (noting that New York Civil Rights Law ' 50-51 requires "(i) use of plaintiff's name, po......
-
Defamation and privacy
...as well as a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose.” ( Downing v. Abercrombie Fitch (9th Cir. 2001) 265 F.3d 994, 1001 ( Downing ).) The statute has an express exemption for use “in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or a......
-
Tidying up the Internet: Takedown of Unauthorized Content under Copyright, Trademark, and Defamation Law
...on the Block , 971 F.2d at 306. 146 Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900, 908 (9th Cir. 2003); Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church, 411 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir. 1969). 147 Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smoke......
-
Tidying up the Internet: Takedown of Unauthorized Content under Copyright, Trademark, and Defamation Law
...on the Block , 971 F.2d at 306. 146 Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900, 908 (9th Cir. 2003); Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church, 411 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir. 1969). 147 Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smoke......
-
The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
...provisions around commerciality). (32.) See, e.g., CAL. CIV. CODE [section] 3344 (West 2020); Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2001); Brinkley v. Casablancas, 438 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1012-13 (App. Div. (33.) Joe Dickerson & Assocs., LLC v. Dittmar, 34 P.3d 995......