Hoffman v. Capital Cities
Decision Date | 10 October 2000 |
Docket Number | DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,99-55686,No. 99-55563,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,99-55563 |
Citation | 255 F.3d 1180 |
Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) DUSTIN HOFFMAN,, v. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INCORPORATED, DEFENDANT, AND L.A. MAGAZINE, INC., |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Steven M. Perry, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles, California, for the defendant-appellant.
Charles N. Shephard, Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Mark S. Lee, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, California, for amicus curiae Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.
Floyd Abrams and Landis C. Best, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York, New York, for amici curiae of Various Magazine and Newspaper Publishers, Broadcasters, Television Syndicators, and Media Associations.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dickran M. Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-03638-DT
Before: Robert Boochever, A. Wallace Tashima, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
In 1982, actor Dustin Hoffman starred in the movie"Tootsie," playing a male actor who dresses as a woman to get a part on a television soap opera. One memorable still photograph from the movie showed Hoffman in character in a red long-sleeved sequined evening dress and high heels, posing in front of an American flag. The still carried the text,
In March 1997, Los Angeles Magazine ("LAM") published the "Fabulous Hollywood Issue!" An article from this issue entitled "Grand Illusions" used computer technology to alter famous film stills to make it appear that the actors were wearing Spring 1997 fashions. The sixteen familiar scenes included movies and actors such as "North by Northwest" (Cary Grant), "Saturday Night Fever" (John Travolta), "Rear Window" (Grace Kelly and Jimmy Stewart), "Gone with the Wind" (Vivian Leigh and Hattie McDaniel), "Jailhouse Rock" (Elvis Presley), "The Seven Year Itch" (Marilyn Monroe), "Thelma and Louise" (Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis), and even "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" (with the Creature in Nike shoes). The final shot was the "Tootsie" still. The American flag and Hoffman's head remained as they appeared in the original, but Hoffman's body and his long-sleeved red sequined dress were replaced by the body of a male model in the same pose, wearing a spaghetti-strapped, cream-colored, silk evening dress and high-heeled sandals. LAM omitted the original caption. The text on the page identified the still as from the movie "Tootsie," and read, "Dustin Hoffman isn't a drag in a butter-colored silk gown by Richard Tyler and Ralph Lauren heels."
LAM did not ask Hoffman for permission to publish the altered photograph. Nor did LAM secure permission from Columbia Pictures, the copyright holder. In April 1997, Hoffman filed a complaint in California state court against LAM's parent company, Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (now ABC, Inc. or "ABC"). The complaint alleged that LAM's publication of the altered photograph misappropriated Hoffman's name and likeness in violation of (1) the California common law right of publicity; (2) the California statutory right of publicity, Civil Code §§ 3344; (3) the California unfair competition statute, Business and Professions Code §§ 17200; and (4) the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a).
ABC removed the case to federal court. Hoffman added LAM as a defendant. After a bench trial, the district court found for Hoffman and against LAM on all of Hoffman's claims, rejecting LAM's defense that its use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. The court awarded Hoffman $1,500,000 in compensatory damages, and held that Hoffman was entitled to punitive damages as well. Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999). After a hearing, the court awarded Hoffman $1,500,000 in punitive damages. It also held that ABC was not liable for any of LAM's actions.
Hoffman moved for an award of $415,755.41 in attorney fees. The district court granted the motion, but reduced the amount to $269,528.50.
In these appeals, LAM appeals the district court's judgment in Hoffman's favor, and the court's award of attorney fees.
California recognizes, in its common law and its statutes, "the right of a person whose identity has commercial value--most often a celebrity--to control the commercial use of that identity." Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir. 1992) (as amended). Hoffman claims that LAM violated his state right of publicity by appropriating his name and likeness. He also claims that LAM violated his rights under the federal Lanham Act.
LAM replies that its challenged use of the "Tootsie" photo is protected under the First Amendment. We evaluate this defense aware of "the careful balance that courts have gradually constructed between the right of publicity and the First Amendment and federal intellectual property laws. " Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619, 626 (6th Cir. 2000).
LAM argues that the "Grand Illusions" article and the altered "Tootsie" photograph contained therein are an expression of editorial opinion, entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Hoffman, a public figure,1 must therefore show that LAM, a media defendant, acted with "actual malice," that is, with knowledge that the photograph was false, or with reckless disregard for its falsity. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964). Because Hoffman did not produce clear and convincing evidence that LAM acted with actual malice, LAM contends that all Hoffman's claims are barred by the First Amendment.
The district court rejected this argument. First, it concluded that the magazine article was commercial speech not entitled to constitutional protection: "[t]he First Amendment does not protect the exploitative commercial use of Mr. Hoffman's name and likeness." Hoffman, 33 F. Supp. 2d at 874. Second, the court found that LAM acted with actual malice, and "the First Amendment does not protect knowingly false speech." Id. at 875.2
The district court concluded that LAM's alteration of the "Tootsie" photograph was an "exploitative commercial" use not entitled to First Amendment protection. We disagree.
"Commercial speech" has special meaning in the First Amendment context. Although the boundary between commercial and noncommercial speech has yet to be clearly delineated, the "core notion of commercial speech" is that it "does no more than propose a commercial transaction." Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 66 (1983) (quotations omitted). Such speech is entitled to a measure of First Amendment protection. See, e.g., Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 183 (1999) ( ). Commercial messages, however, do not receive the same level of constitutional protection as other types of protected expression. See 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 498 (1996). False or misleading commercial speech is not protected. See Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 623-24 (1995) (commercial speech receives limited amount of protection compared to speech at core of First Amendment and may freely be regulated if it is misleading). When speech is properly classified as commercial, a public figure plaintiff does not have to show that the speaker acted with actual malice. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 242 F.3d 539, 556 (5th Cir. 2001) ().
In many right of publicity cases, the question of actual malice does not arise, because the challenged use of the celebrity's identity occurs in an advertisement that"does no more that propose a commercial transaction" and is clearly commercial speech. See, e.g., Newcombe v. Adolph Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 691 (9th Cir. 1998) ( ); Abdul-Jabbar v. Gen. Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407, 409 (9th Cir. 1996) ( ); Waits, 978 F.2d at 1097-98 ( ); White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395, 1396 (9th Cir. 1992) (as amended) (use of game-show hostess's "identity" in print advertisements for electronic products); Midler v. Ford Motor Co. , 849 F.2d 460, 461 (9th Cir. 1988) ( ). In all these cases, the defendant used an aspect of the celebrity's identity entirely and directly for the purpose of selling a product. Such uses do not implicate the First Amendment's protection of expressions of editorial opinion. Cf. White, 971 F.2d at 1401 ( ).
Hoffman points out that the body double in the "Tootsie" photograph was identified as wearing Ralph Lauren shoes and that there was a Ralph Lauren advertisement (which does not feature shoes) elsewhere in the magazine. (Insofar as the record shows, Richard Tyler, the designer of the gown, had never advertised in LAM.) Hoffman also points to the"Shopper's Guide" in the back of the magazine, which provided stores and prices for the shoes and gown.
These facts are not enough to make the "Tootsie" photograph pure commercial speech. If the altered photograph had appeared in a Ralph Lauren advertisement, then we would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
West v. Media General Operations, Inc., 1:00-CV-184.
...malice in defamation cases at the appellate level. This is only a standard of appellate review. See, e.g., Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.2001); Campbell v. Citizens For Honest Government, Inc., 255 F.3d 560, 570 (8th Cir.2001); Eastivood v. National Enqui......
-
Etw Corp. v. Jireh Pub., Inc.
...the district court's ruling that the trading cards were expression protected by the First Amendment. In Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.2001), the Ninth Circuit was again presented with a case involving the tension between the right publicity and the First Amendm......
-
Chapman v. Journal Concepts, Inc.
...710. The "actual malice" standard applies to both Plaintiff's defamation and defamation-based claims.5 See Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir.2001); Leidholdt v. L.F.P. Inc., 860 F.2d 890, 893 n. 4 (9th B. Plaintiff's Claim for Misappropriation/Unauthorized Us......
-
Christian Research Institute v. Alnor
...presents "`a heavy burden, far in excess of the preponderance sufficient for most civil litigation.'" (Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (9th Cir.2001) 255 F.3d 1180, 1186-1187.) "The burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence 'requires a finding of high probability. The evidence mu......
-
Spencer's Art Law Journal - Vol. 3, No. 2 - Fall 2012
...v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988). 12 Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999) rev'd by 255 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 13 James Bates, 'Sopranos' Take Shot at Ad in Court, L.A. Times, February 4, 2003, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/......
-
Street Photography Runs Into New York Laws On The Right To Privacy: When Is A Photograph Of A Person 'Art' Protected By The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution?
...v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988). 12 Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999) rev'd by 255 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 13 James Bates, 'Sopranos' Take Shot at Ad in Court, L.A. Times, February 4, 2003, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/......
-
All Native Advertising Is Not Equal: Why That Matters Under The First Amendment And Why It Should Matter To The FTC Part IV
...Aug. 10, 2001). 20.119 A.D.2d 13, 15 (Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1st Dept. 1986). Id. at 14. Id. at 18. Id. Id. at 19. Hoffman v. L.A. Magazine, 255 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001). Id., at 1188. ;Id. at 1185. Id. (internal citations omitted). 29 Gorran v. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., 464 F.Supp.2d 315 (S.......
-
The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
...used the actual malice test to construct a First Amendment defense in a right of publicity case. Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180, 1186 (gth Cir. (191.) Fot critiques of the transformativeness test, see ROTHMAN, supra note 1, at 146-51; Dougherty, supra note 170, at 28-35,......
-
OVERBROAD INJUNCTIONS AGAINST SPEECH (ESPECIALLY IN LIBEL AND HARASSMENT CASES).
...Cal. Rptr. 2d 639, 640 (Ct. App. 1995); Foster v. Svenson, 7 N.Y.S.3d 96, 100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015); Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180, 1183-84 (9th Cir. (126.) Christina Capecchi & Katie Rogers, Killer of Cecil the Lion Finds out That He Is a Target Now, of Internet Vi......
-
Caught on tape: exposing the unsettled and unpredictable state of the right of publicity.
...(129.) See ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 829, 835 (N.D. Ohio 2000). (130.) See Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. 255 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating "commercial messages ... do not receive the same level of constitutional protection as other types of protected e......
-
Abusive trademark litigation and the incredible shrinking confusion doctrine - trademark abuse in the context of entertainment media and cyberspace.
...Amendment grounds. ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 829 (N.D. Ohio 2000); see also Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting a suit by actor Dustin Hoffman to prevent the magazine from using a digitally altered image of Hoffman's "Tootsie" ......