Document: 433 U.S. 562 97 S.Ct. 2849 53 L.Ed.2d 965 Hugo ZACCHINI, Petitioner,v.SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING COMPANY. No. 76-577. Argued April 25, 1977. Decided June 28, Syllabus Petitioner's 15-second 'human cannonball' act, in which he is shot from a cannon into net some 200 feet away, was, without his consent, videotaped its entirety at county fair Ohio by reporter for respondent broadcasting company and shown on television news program later the same day. Petitioner then brought damages action state court against respondent, alleging an 'unlawful appropriation' of 'professional property.' The trial court's summary judgment was reversed Court Appeals ground that complaint stated cause action. Supreme Court, while recognizing petitioner had under law 'right to publicity value performance,' nevertheless, relying Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 374, 87 534, 17 456, rendered it constitutionally privileged include newscasts matters public interest would otherwise be protected right publicity, absent intent injure or appropriate nonprivileged purpose. Held: 1. It appears Court's opinion syllabus (which looked rule case), as clarified itself, below did not rest adequate independent but rested solely federal grounds considered source respondent's privilege First Fourteenth Amendments, therefore this has jurisdiction decide issue. Pp. 566-568. 2. Amendments do immunize media when they broadcast performer's entire act Constitution no more prevents State requiring compensate than film copyrighted dramatic work liability copyright owner, prize fight baseball game, where promoters participants other plans publicizing event. supra, distinguished. 569-579. (a) petitioner's poses substantial threat economic performance, since (1) if can see free will less willing pay fair, (2) goes heart ability earn living entertainer. 575-576. (b) protection provides incentive him make investment required produce performance public. 576-577. (c) While entertainment, well news, enjoys Amendment protection, entertainment itself important neither nor deprived benefit long commercial stake appropriately recognized. P. 578. (d) Although may matter own press circumstances case, require so. 578-579. 47 St.2d 224, 351 N.E.2d 454, reversed. John G. Lancione, Fairview Park, Ohio, petitioner. Ezra K. Bryan, Cleveland, respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered Court. 1 Petitioner, Zacchini, He performs away. Each occupies 15 seconds. In August September 1972, engaged perform regular basis Geauga County Fair Burton, Ohio. performed fenced area, surrounded grandstands, grounds. Members attending were charged separate admission fee observe act. 2 On 30, freelance Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., operator station attended fair. carried small movie camera. noticed asked performance. so day; instructions producer daily newscast, returned following day This clip approximately seconds length, 11 o'clock night, together with favorable commentary.1 3 damages, 'engaged business,' one 'invented father . only family last fifty years,' 'showed commercialized consent,' such conduct appropriation plaintiff's professional App. 4-5. Respondent answered moved judgment, granted court. 4 majority held conversion infringement common-law copyright, judge concurred publicity' All three judges agreed show compensating any financial injury could prove trial. 5 Like concurring Appeals, performance.' 455 (1976). syllabus, we are look used case,2 declared first use name likeness another, whether one, second liable over objection absence license privilege, Ibid. nevertheless gave because, words syllabus: 6 'A TV report legitimate individual's unless actual non-privileged private use, individual.' 7 We certiorari, 429 1037, 730, 50 747 (1977), consider issue unresolved Court: immunized alleged statelaw publicity.' Pet. Cert. Insofar United States reverse 8 * If ground, writ certiorari should dismissed improvidently granted, Wilson Loew's Inc., 355 597, 78 526, 519 (1958), '(o)ur power judgments correct them extent incorrectly adjudge rights. And our wrong judgments, revise opinions. permitted render advisory opinion, after corrected views laws, review amount nothing opinion.' Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 125-126, 65 459, 463, 89 L.Ed. 789 (1945). confident, however, have presented case. 9 There doubt grounded possess arising law. also clear claim constitutional sustained. identified syllabus. enough consult understanding Perkins Benguet Consolicated Mining 342 437, 441-443, 72 413, 416-417, 96 485 (1952),3 adjudicating crucial question televise placed principal reliance 456 (1967), case involving limitations tort actions. construed principle along New York Times Co. Sullivan, 376 254, 84 710, 686 (1964), 'the even though reports might intrude private,' concluded, therefore, 'privileged individual seeks publicly exploit talents keepting benefits private.' St.2d, 234, N.E.2d, 461. thus exists cases 'where claimed.' referred Draft 21 relevant portion Restatement (Second) Torts (1975), understood room reasonable appropriations limiting reach privacy rather creating invasion. preferred notion Restatement's formulation, reasoning 'since gravamen degree intrusion reasonable, principles give way informed concern, concept seems useful one.' 234 n. 5, 461 5. (Emphasis added.) 10 Had decision both grounds, either been dispositive, jurisdiction. Fox Film Corp. Muller, 296 207, 56 183, 80 158 (1935); Enterprise Irrigation District Farmers Mutual Canal Company, 243 157, 164, 37 318, 320, 61 644 (1917). But like mention Constitution, citing instead controlling. us That have, not, invoke does foreclose here. Steele Louisville & Nashville R. 323 192, 197 1, 226, 229, 173 (1944); Indiana ex rel. Anderson Brand, 303 95, 98, 58 443, 445, 82 685 (1938). Even favor must ultimately resting law, very least felt compelled what considerations construe apply manner did. event, issue; erred declare, leaving Consolidated supra. 'If 'held because compulsion enunciated hold, relieved compulsion. freed these suits according local law.' Missouri Southern Mayfield, 340 71 3, 95 (1950). II 12 standard merely reported performing described commented showing picture television, different contending appearance newsworthy items. His filmed displayed enjoy. This, claimed, property. 'a 'personal control display exploitation personality exercise talents.'4 'exclusive given performances' said 'valuable part attained efforts' entitled legal protection. observed, expressly assumed, abandoned rights present Grounds. 13 challenged invasion privileged, saying 'must accorded broad latitude choice how much presents each story incident, emphasis presentation. No fixed bar reporting depicting occurrence discrete formulated unduly restrict 'breathing room' freedom requires.' 235, Under view, act.5 14 relied heavily mandate consent. Involved Hill 'Right Privacy' statute6 Life Magazine, course reviewing new play, connected play long-past incident falsely their experience time. sought humiliation suffering flowing nondefamatory falsehoods allegedly invaded Hill's privacy. held, opening linked recover knowingly false published reckless disregard truth rigorous applied (1964). hotly contested decided divided involved entirely recognized As reveals steeped literature aware developing distinctions nuances branch example, cited W. Prosser, Law 831-832 (3d ed. 1964), author's well-known article, Privacy, 48 Calif.L.Rev. 383 (1960), four distinct branches.7 'false light' interest, 'intrusion,' U.S., 384-385, 9, S.Ct., 540, 'appropriation' purposes trade, id., 381, 538, 'private details' about non-newsworthy person 7, 539. abundantly involve performer, having value, kind plainly Court8 adjudicated cases.9 16 differences between two torts important. First, State's interests providing instance different. 'The protected' permitting recovery placing plaintiff light 'is clearly reputation, overtones mental distress defamation.' Calif.L.Rev., 400. By contrast, protecting proprietary encourage entertainment.10 note, closely analogous goals patent focusing reap reward endeavors little feelings reputation. Second, differ dissemination information protect attempt minimize publication damaging matter, who gets publishing. An entertainer usually widespread publication. Indeed, seek enjoin act; simply compensation form damages. Nor appear cases, Rosenbloom Metromedia, 403 29, 91 1811, 29 (1971); Gertz Robert Welch, 418 323, 94 2997, 41 (1974); Firestone, 424 448, 958, 154 (1976), furnish support ruling. These Times, emphasize extended defamation particularly suit official figure. None existing 18 Moreover, Gertz, Firestone all events; none there publish performer ordinarily paid. evident, here contrary, state-law serve prevent facts act.11 Wherever line particular situations drawn those quite sure owner. Copyrights Act, U.S.C.App. § 101 et seq. (1976 ed.); cf. Kalem Harper Bros., 222 55, 32 20, 92 (1911); Manners Morosco, 252 317, 40 335, 64 590 (1920), fight, Ettore Philco Television Corp., 229 F.2d 481 (CA3), cert. denied, 926, 76 783, 100 1456 (1956); Pittsburgh Athletic KQV 24 F.Supp. 490 (WD Pa. 1938), ample reasons reaching conclusion. 19 recognized, product energy, end result time, effort, expense. Much lies exclusive performance'; fair.12 effect similar preventing charging fee. rationale (protecting publicity) straightforward unjust enrichment theft good will. social purpose served defendant get aspect market normally pay.' Kalven, Privacy Tort Were Warren Brandeis Wrong?, 31 Contemp. Prob. 326, 331 (1966). unlike unauthorized another's trade incidental press, Thus, strongest involving, entertainer's reputation enhance attractiveness product, activity acquired place. 20 Of course, Ohio's rests desire time effort invested consideration underlies laws enforced Mazer Stein, 347 201, 219, 74 460, 471, 98 630 (1954): philosophy behind clause empowering Congress grant patents copyrights conviction encouragement personal gain best advance welfare through authors inventors 'Science Arts.' Sacrificial days devoted creative activities deserve rewards commensurate services rendered.' perhaps regard 'reward owner (as) secondary consideration,' Paramount Pictures, 334 131, 158, 68 915, 929, 1260 (1948), 'intended definitely valuable, enforceable rights' order afford greater production works Washingtonian Publishing Pearson, 306 36, 59 397, 400, 83 470 (1939). making deciding type work. Cf. Goldstein California, 412 546, 93 2303, 163 (1973); Kewanee Oil Bicron 416 470, 1879, 315 (1974).13 true news. Hill. note performance; wants paid it. think remedy represent species fault contrary letter spirit (1974). knew objected televising film. 22 conclude although 23 Reversed. POWELL, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 25 Disclaiming narrow before us, reverses based repeated incantation single formula: act.' holding today summed up sentence: 26 'Wherever consent.' Ante, 574-575. 27 I formula resolution case.1 am persuaded sensitive values stake, dissent. 28 draw distinction, ante, 575, view comparable broadcasts sporting events, theatrical performances, broadcaster keeps profits. suggestion made Instead, concedes hardly surprising means coverage. ordinary program, consuming total routine example press' fulfilling informing function vital system. station's rise liability2 disturbing implications, lead self-censorship. Smith 361 147, 150-154, 215, 217-219, 205 (1959). Hereafter, whenever editor unsure certain footage received camera crew portray 'entire act,'3 decline coverage events confine watered-down verbal reporting, occasional still picture. loser. reportage meant foster. See generally Miami Herald Tornillo, 241, 257-258, 2831, 2839, 730 389, 542, (1967); 270-272, 279, 720-721, 725, 30 my commands analytical starting point selected Rather begin quantitative analysis behavior act? direct initial attention actions media: footage? When used, here, hold protects suit, strong subterfuge cover exploitation.4 'reappropriation' varieties privacy' Dean Prosser classic article. (1960). causes competing considerably avoid sort exposure, existence likely turn occurred fashion. complain fact exposure public, timing manner. welcomes retain maximize himself monetary flow chosen, essence, cannot, consistent Amendment, reportage. 339-348, 351-352, 3006-3011, 3012-3013, (1974) (clarifying standards suits, depending figure). Since undeniably treated subterfuge, privileged. affirm. 33 STEVENS, 34 telecast petitioner.* 35 read explanation limits define substantive commonlaw anything recognize limit right. unquestionably influenced proper sensitivity principles, construing Amendment; indeed, confess Nevertheless, sufficiently doubtful remand clarification script commentary accompanying follows: 'This now spectator sport human cannonballing fact, great Zacchini cannonball around, just happens that, is, Great Fair, Burton believe me, it's thriller you really need appreciate .' original.) 12. Beck 379 89, 2, 85 223, 142 (1964); (1952); Minnesota National Tea 309 551, 554, 60 676, 678, 920 (1940). Cassidy Glossip, 17, 231 Williamson Heater Radich, 128 St. 124, 190 N.E. (1934); Thackery Helfrich, 123 334, 336, 175 449, 450 (1931); Hauser, 404, 408, 131 66, 67 (1920); Jur.2d, Courts 247 (1955). courts foreign corporation. jurisdiction, indication Amendment. filed reasoned, Due Process Clause prohibited exercising rule, obliged merits issue, preclude '(F) allow stand risk affirmance differently free, decisions, so.' 417. suggest determination holding. language preparing same, yet reasonably necessary sustain necessity court.' Hart Andrews, 103 218, 221, 132 846, 847 (1921) (emphasis added). supra; Housh Peth, 165 35, 133 340, 341 (1956), held: 'An actionable unwarranted one's personality, affairs wrongful outrage suffering, shame sensibilities.' indicated applicable set out 652C (Tent. 13, 1967), comments thereto, portions footnotes opinion. Also, referring publicity,' quoted approvingly Haelan Laboratories, Topps Chewing Gum, 202 866, 868 (CA2 1953). explication necessarily so, but, rather, performer. recklessly disregarded contract third here.' Section 51 Civil Rights (McKinney 1976) injunction 50: person, firm corporation uses advertising purposes, name, portrait obtained written consent minor her parent guardian, guilty misdemeanor.' comprises kinds plaintiff, tied common almost except represents interference 'to let alone." 389. 'intrusion' upon seclusion solitude; disclosure facts' life; places eye; purposes. One 'pirate(s) identity advantage own.' Id., 403. See, 842 1964); Bloustein, Aspect Human Dignity: Answer 39 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 962, 986-991 Contemp.Prob. E. g., Sharkey 986 (S.D.N.Y.1950); 1938); Twentieth Century Sporting Club, Transradio Press Service, Misc. 71, 300 N.Y.S. 159 (1937); Hogan A. S. Barnes 114 U.S.P.Q. 314 (Pa.Ct.C.P. 1957); Myers U. Camera Misc.2d 765, 167 N.Y.S.2d 771 (1957). prior 1961 helpfully reviewed Gordon, Right Property Name, Likeness, Personality History, 55 Nw.U.L.Rev. 553 challenge exhibition ago. Judge Biggs, writing said: 'There are, speaking generally, polar types cases. arises accidental rends veil obscurity surrounding average makes him, arguably, newsworthy. involves entrepreneur. Between extremes many gradations, most strictly picture.' F.2d, 486. '. hire, curtailment, consideration, him. Such vitally affects livelihood, precisely libel, earnings artistry criterion, every perforce literary, sports critic.' 490. expressed 'that appropriation, such.' 456. noted, limited category lawsuits arise heading 'appropriation.' assert general advertising, likeness; relies narrower televised perform. 806-807 (4th 1971), generalizes cases: faced early obvious newspapers magazines, say radio, motion pictures, philanthropic institutions, operated profit. contention everything agencies 'for trade,' closer connection, beyond mere newspaper sold; presence adjacent columns, duplication item difference. Any conclusion probability unconstitutional press. Accordingly, book privacy; photograph newsreel incidentally appears.' (Footnotes omitted.) 652C, Comment d 22, 1976). possible, increased stimulating public's seeing live. circumstances, able recover. injured $25,000, allowed authorize proved. California statute outlawing 'record piracy' recordings performances major musical artists. Petitioners launched multifaceted attack statute, argue violated rejecting broad-based attack, concluded: statutory scheme evidences legislative policy prohibit 'tape piracy,' adversely affect continued recordings, large industry California. has, attributes restraint idea concept; petitioners individuals remain record compositions appeared original recording. 'Until takes further respect ., acts piracy case.' 571, 2317. Federal rejected challenges 'no (has been) concept.' Bodin, 375 1265, 1267 (W.D.Okl.1974). Walt Disney Productions Air Pirates, 345 108, 115-116 (N.D.Cal.1972) (citing Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge Guaran- tees Free Speech Press?, UCLA Rev. 1180 (1970), argues abridge restrain communication ideas concepts); Stigwood Group Ltd. O'Reilly, 346 (Conn.1972) (also supra). prevented staging filming upheld constitutionality trade-secret again presented. Citing Goldstein, stated: 'Just regulatory writings regulate discoveries. diverse viewpoints intellectual property relating invention subject copyright. limitation regulating area conflict operation passed ..' 479, 1885. resulted gaining information, emphasized decidedly beneficial society,' 485, 1888, it, 'organized scientific technological research become fragmented, society, whole, suffer.' 486, 1888. explicit, unlikely 'act' commenced abruptly explosion way, ending landing few later. assume firing preceded fanfare, possibly stretching several minutes, heighten audience's anticipation: introduction description uniqueness danger, last-minute checking apparatus, entry cannon, accompanied suitably ominous master ceremonies. found remand, appropriated act' newsclip guidance future difficulties determining constitutes inevitable. At points acknowledge reason asserting enrichment. e. 576. remainder inconsistently accepts measure defendant's enhanced profits harm regardless defendant. 575 gained financially flight (although normal revenue items appeared). event income somehow reduced broadcast, apparently doubts especially receives circus, competition duration (e. winning ski-jump competition), short skits, offer examples. requires detailed specification identifying bona fide. (the suggested 565). out, selling during advertisers customary fashion 'commercial exploitation' sense intended 1971). 266, 718, Paragraph 455, reads 'proper standard' defining boundaries tort:

Category: 2