Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04374-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORSI BONNER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FUJI PHOTO FILM,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-04374 CRB

ORDER

Dorsi Bonner (“Plaintiff”) claims that her picture has been misappropriated and used

on packaging for disposable cameras. Plaintiff asserts various causes of action under

California law for the wrong she has suffered, among them invasion of privacy, appropriation

of likeness, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, unfair business practices,

and the violation of several state statutes.

Now pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Edward Menuez

(“Defendant”), the photographer who took Bonner’s picture. Defendant asserts that

Plaintiff’s state-law claims are all preempted by the Copyright Act. For the reasons set forth

below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

In Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit

examined the case of several surfers who claimed that a clothing company had

misappropriated a picture of them and used the photograph for commercial gain in a catalog. 

Case 3:06-cv-04374-CRB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Id. at 999-1000. The surfers asserted numerous claims under California law, including

invasion of privacy, appropriation of likeness, and negligence. Id. at 1000. The clothing

company argued that the claims were preempted by federal copyright law. The Ninth

Circuit, however, rejected that argument, holding that the surfers’ were not preempted

because “it is not the publication of the photograph itself, as a work of creative authorship,

that is the basis for [the surfers’] claims, but rather, it is the use of the [surfers’] likenesses

and their names pictured in the published photograph.” Id. at 1003. The court held that

claims for misappropriation of a person’s “name or likeness” is not preempted by the

Copyright Act, “notwithstanding the fact that [such] names or likenesses are embodied in a

copyrightable photograph.” Id. at 1004.

More recently, in Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.

2006), the Ninth Circuit examined the case of a singer who alleged that a clip from one of her

songs had been used without her permission in subsequent recordings by other artists. Id. at

1136. The singer asserted numerous state-law claims, including invasion of privacy and

misappropriation of name and voice. Id. The recording studio that used the recording argued

that her state-law claims were preempted by federal copyright law. Id. The Ninth Circuit

agreed, holding that the singer’s sound recording was “within the subject matter of

copyright” as a work of creative authorship that had been “fixed in a tangible medium.” Id.

at 1141, 1143. The court distinguished other cases in which other plaintiffs had sued for

misappropriation of their voices or their likenesses, finding those cases inapposite on the

ground that the singer’s claim “challenged control of the artistic work itself and could hardly

be more closely related to the subject matter of the Copyright Act.” Id. at 1142.

Defendant, citing Laws, moves for dismissal on the ground that Plaintiff’s claims are

preempted by federal copyright law. Plaintiff opposes the motion, citing Downing. The

Court agrees with Plaintiff that her claims are not preempted by the Copyright Act.

Defendant’s effort to force this case under the umbrella of Laws is utterly

unpersuasive. First, the Ninth Circuit in Laws explicitly distinguished cases, such as this

one, involving the alleged commercial misappropriation of photographs. See Laws, 448 F.3d

Case 3:06-cv-04374-CRB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2006\4374\order re preemption.wpd 3

at 1141 (“Laws points to two cases for support. Both cases, however, involve photographs

used in advertising, and are distinguishable from this case.” (citing Downing, 265 F.3d at

994)). Second, leading copyright treatises are in accord on the notion that the use of a

person’s likeness is not covered by copyright law, even though the likeness may be captured

in a copyrightable photograph. See, e.g., 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer

on Copyright § 1.01[B][1][c], at 1-28 (2006) (“[N]ame and likeness do not become a work of

authorship simply because they are embodied in a copyrightable work such as a

photograph.”). Third, despite Defendant’s characterization of the complaint and the

complaint’s occasional use of the words “likeness” and “picture” as synonyms, Plaintiff is

not advancing a claim for the misappropriation of the photograph itself, but rather for the

misappropriation of her likeness, as it has been captured in the photograph. See, e.g., Compl.

¶ 10 (“Defendant knowingly used Plaintiff’s likeness on merchandise and to sell their

[disposable cameras].”); id. ¶ 11 (“The use of the Plaintiff’s likeness was directly connected

to the Defendant’s commercial purpose.”); id. ¶ 17 (“The actions of Defendant as alleged

herein above constitute unlawful appropriation of Plaintiffs likeness . . . .”).

The Court concludes that this case is squarely controlled by the surfers’ case and not

the singer’s. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04374-CRB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3