Source: https://www.mediainstitute.org/2013/08/26/videogame-avatars-a-question-of-transformative-use/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:10:35+00:00

Document:
In Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,1 a former Rutgers University football quarterback, Ryan Hart, brought suit against Electronic Arts, Inc., popularly known as EA Sports, for violating his right of publicity under New Jersey law. In analyzing Ryan’s common-law right of publicity claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit borrowed heavily from classic intellectual property principles.
Ultimately, we find that the Rogers Test does not present the proper analytical approach for cases such as the one at bar. While the Test may have a use in trademark-like right of publicity cases, it is inapposite here. We are concerned that this test is a blunt instrument, unfit for widespread application in cases that require a carefully calibrated balancing of two fundamental protections: the right of free expression and the right to control, manage, and profit from one’s own identity.
1. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013).
2. Id., citing Zacchini v. Scripps–Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562, 574–75, 97 S. Ct. 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977).
3. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013) (“Thus, when New Jersey first recognized the concept in 1907, its analysis looked to the ‘so-called right of privacy’ and the limits on that concept. Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co., 73 N.J.Eq. 136, 67 A. 392, 394 (N.J.Ch. 1907) (enjoining a company from using the name or likeness of Thomas Edison to promote its products). Additionally, we note that, even at this early stage the New Jersey court recognized that an individual enjoyed a property interest in his or her identity…. (‘[I]t is difficult to understand why the peculiar cast of one’s features is not … one’s property, and why its pecuniary value, if it has one, does not belong to its owner, rather than to the person seeking to make an unauthorized use of it.’)”).
4. Palmer v. Schonhorn Enters., Inc., 96 N.J.Super. 72, 232 A.2d 458, 462 (Ch.Div. 1967).
5. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013), quoting Palmer v. Schonhorn Enters., Inc., supra.
6. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013).
7. Zacchini v. Scripps–Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562, 574–75, 97 S. Ct. 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977).
8. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013).
9. Doe v. TCI Cablevision, 110 S.W.3d 363, 374 (Mo. 2003) (en banc). See also Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013) (As the Third Circuit described it, the case that considered a hockey player’s right of publicity claim against a comic book publishing company. In TCI, Anthony “Tony” Twist, a hockey player, brought suit against a number of individuals and entities involved in producing and publishing the Spawn comic book series after the introduction of a villainous character named Anthony “Tony Twist” Twistelli. In balancing Twist’s property interests in his own name and identity against the First Amendment interests of the comic book creators, the TCI court rejected both the Transformative Use and Rogers tests, noting that they gave “too little consideration to the fact that many uses of a person’s name and identity have both expressive and commercial components.” Id. at 374. The Supreme Court of Missouri considered both tests to be too rigid, noting that they operated “to preclude a cause of action whenever the use of the name and identity is in any way expressive, regardless of its commercial exploitation.” Id. The court instead applied what it called a “sort of predominant use test.”).
10. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013).
11. Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2nd Cir. 1989). See also Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., supra (Describing the Rogers case: Ginger Rogers brought suit against the producers and distributors of “Ginger and Fred,” a film that was alleged to infringe on Rogers’ right of publicity and confuse consumers in violation of the Act. (Despite its title, the film was not about either Ginger Rogers or Fred Astaire.) In analyzing the right of publicity claim under Oregon law, the Second Circuit noted Oregon’s “concern for the protection of free expression,” and held that Oregon would not “permit the right of publicity to bar the use of a celebrity’s name in a movie title unless the title was wholly unrelated to the movie or was simply a disguised commercial advertisement for the sale of goods or services.” (internal quotation marks omitted). After applying this test, the Rogers court concluded that the right of publicity claim merited dismissal because “the title ‘Ginger and Fred’ is clearly related to the content of the movie and is not a disguised advertisement for the sale of goods and services or a collateral commercial product.”).
12. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013), citing ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 924 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting that “a Lanham Act false endorsement claim is the federal equivalent of the right of publicity” (citing Bruce P. Keller, The Right of Publicity: Past, Present, and Future, 1207 PLI CORP. LAW & PRAC. HANDBOOK 159, 170 (2000))).
13. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013).
14. Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal.4th 387, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 126, 21 P.3d 797, 804–08 (2001).
15. Id., citing Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S. Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994).
16. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013).
19. Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal.4th 387, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 126, 21 P.3d 797, 804–08 (2001).
20. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013), quoting Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., supra.
21. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013).
25. Id. (“Moreover, we are wary of converting the ability to alter a digital avatar from mere feature to talisman, thereby opening the door to cynical abuse. If the mere presence of the feature were enough, video game companies could commit the most blatant acts of misappropriation only to absolve themselves by including a feature that allows users to modify the digital likenesses. We cannot accept that such an outcome would adequately balance the interests in right of publicity cases.”).
26. Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2161317, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3rd Cir. 2013).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.