Opinion ID: 2766890
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The incidental use defense

Text: Finally, EA contends the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the incidental use defense. EA did not assert this defense in DAVIS V. ELECTRONIC ARTS 13 the district court. “We apply a general rule against entertaining arguments on appeal that were not presented or developed before the district court.” In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). That rule, however, is “discretionary, not jurisdictional.” Id. We have recognized three circumstances in which we have discretion to reach waived issues, including “‘when the issue presented is purely one of law and either does not depend on the factual record developed below, or the pertinent record has been fully developed.’” Id. (quoting Bolker v. Comm’r, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985)). Under the circumstances of this case, whether EA has established a probability of prevailing on its incidental use defense is a question of law that we can address on the existing record. We therefore exercise our discretion to address the issue. The parties agree that the incidental use defense exists under California law. We therefore assume, for purposes of this opinion, that it does.5 The parties also rely on the same cases and treatises to define the scope of the defense. Under 5 Although California courts have not yet held that the incidental use defense applies to right-of-publicity claims, the defense is widely recognized. See 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 6:31 (2d ed. 2014) (citing “the general rule that an insignificant or fleeting use of plaintiff’s identity is not an infringement”); Stayart v. Google Inc., 710 F.3d 719, 723 (7th Cir. 2013) (recognizing the incidental use as a defense to right-of-publicity claims under Wisconsin common law and statute); Lohan v. Perez, 924 F. Supp. 2d 447, 455 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (applying the incidental use defense to a right-of-publicity claim under New York law); Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 865 P.2d 633, 648 n.6 (Cal. 1994) (en banc) (citing favorably the Restatement Second of Torts for the proposition that “mere incidental use [is] not actionable” as “appropriation of [the] commercial or other value of [a] name or likeness”). 14 DAVIS V. ELECTRONIC ARTS those authorities, “[a] number of factors are relevant,” such as “(1) whether the use has a unique quality or value that would result in commercial profit to the defendant; (2) whether the use contributes something of significance; (3) the relationship between the reference to the plaintiff and the purpose and subject of the work; and (4) the duration, prominence or repetition of the name or likeness relative to the rest of the publication.” Aligo v. Time-Life Books, Inc., No. C 94-20707 JW, 1994 WL 715605, at  (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 1994) (internal citations omitted). See also 5 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 28:7.50 (4th ed. 2014) (“The mere trivial or fleeting use of a person’s name or image in an advertisement will not trigger liability when such a usage will have only a de minimis commercial implication.”); Stayart, 710 F.3d at 723 (“For use of a person’s name for advertising or trade purposes to be actionable . . . there must be a substantial rather than an incidental connection between the use and the defendant’s commercial purpose.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Yeager v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1100 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“The rationale underlying this doctrine is that an incidental use has no commercial value.”); Preston v. Martin Bregman Prods., Inc., 765 F. Supp. 116, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (“Whether a use falls within this exception to liability is determined by the role that the use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness plays in the main purpose and subject of the work at issue.”). These factors support the plaintiffs’ position here. Under the first and second factors, the former players’ likenesses have unique value and contribute to the commercial value of Madden NFL. EA goes to substantial lengths to incorporate accurate likenesses of current and former players, including paying millions of dollars to license DAVIS V. ELECTRONIC ARTS 15 the likenesses of current players. EA has acknowledged, “[t]he Madden titles are successful in part because they allow consumers to simulate play involving any of the 32 NFL teams, using real NFL players.” Having acknowledged the likenesses of current NFL players carry substantial commercial value, EA does not offer a persuasive reason to conclude otherwise as to the former players. EA argues that, because there are several thousand players depicted in Madden NFL, any individual player’s likeness has only a de minimis commercial value. There is no basis for such a sweeping statement. EA includes only a small number of particularly successful or popular historic teams. EA also advertises the inclusion of those historic teams in its promotional materials.6 Indeed, we rejected EA’s similar reasoning in Keller: “If EA did not think there was value in having an avatar designed to mimic each individual player, it would not go to the lengths it does to achieve realism in this regard. Having chosen to use the players’ likenesses, EA cannot now hide behind the numerosity of its potential offenses or the alleged unimportance of any one individual player.” 724 F.3d at 1276 n.7. Under the third and fourth factors, the former players’ likenesses are featured prominently in a manner that is substantially related to the main purpose and subject of Madden NFL – to create an accurate virtual simulation of an 6 For example, the Official Game Guide for the 2006 edition of Madden NFL states: “Historic Rosters are back again. They allow you to play ‘what if’-type games. For instance, you can replay the ’78 Dallas Cowboys vs the ’78 Steelers in Super Bowl XIII. Just select the teams and away you go back in time to play the game. The players do not have their actual names, but you can edit them if you want optimum realism.” 16 DAVIS V. ELECTRONIC ARTS NFL game. See Preston, 765 F. Supp. at 119; Ladany v. William Morrow & Co., Inc., 465 F. Supp. 870, 881 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). EA has stated publicly it is dedicated to “creating the most true-to life NFL simulation experience as possible . . . We want to accurately deliver an amazing NFL experience in our game.” Accurate depictions of the players on the field are central to the creation of an accurate virtual simulation of an NFL game. Cf. Lohan, 924 F. Supp. 2d at 455–56 (holding the incidental use defense applied when the plaintiff’s name was mentioned once in 104 lines of a song and the mention was “entirely incidental to the theme of the Song”). Therefore, EA has not established a probability of prevailing on its incidental use defense.