Opinion ID: 774958
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Amendment and Right of Publicity Claims

Text: 17 The district court concluded that Abercrombie's use of the photograph containing Appellants' names and likenesses was proper because it constituted expression protected under the First Amendment. We disagree. 18 California has long recognized a common law right of privacy for protection of a person's name and likeness against appropriation by others for their advantage. See Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 3d 409, 416 (Ct. App. 1983). To sustain a common law cause of action for commercial misappropriation, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury. Id. at 417, 198 Cal.Rptr. 342. 19 In addition to the common law cause of action, California has provided a statutory remedy for commercial misappropriation under California Civil Code § 3344. The remedies provided for under California Civil Code § 3344 complement the common law cause of action; they do not replace or codify the common law. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co. , 157 F.3d 686, 691-92 (9th Cir. 1998). Section 3344 provides in relevant part, any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner . . . for purposes of advertising . . . without such person's prior consent . . . shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a). Under section 3344, a plaintiff must prove all the elements of the common law cause of action. In addition, the plaintiff must allege a knowing use by the defendant as well as a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose. See Eastwood, 149 Cal. App. 3d at 417. 20 Under both the common law cause of action and the statutory cause of action no cause of action will lie for the publication of matters in the public interest, which rests on the right of the public to know and the freedom of the press to tell it. Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 34 Cal. App. 4th 790, 793 (Ct. App. 1995). This First Amendment defense extends to almost all reporting of recent events, as well as to publications about people who, by their accomplishments, mode of living, professional standing or calling, create a legitimate and widespread attention to their activities.  Eastwood, 149 Cal. App. 3d at 422. However, the defense is not absolute; we must find a proper accommodation between [the] competing concerns of freedom of speech and the right of publicity. Id. 21 In the instant case, Abercrombie defends on the basis of the First Amendment arguing that the photograph illustrates an article about surfing, a matter in the public interest. To support its defense, Abercrombie relies on Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc., 15 Cal. App. 4th 536 (Ct. App. 1993). In Dora, the court held that a surfing documentary was in the public interest because it was about a certain time and place in California history and, indeed, in American legend. Id. at 543. Dora involved a surfing legend, Mickey Dora, who sued the producer of a video documentary on surfing claiming common law and statutory appropriation of his name and likeness. See id. at 540. The trial court entered summary judgment for the film's producer and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. See id. In addressing the First Amendment issue, the court found that the documentary was about a matter of public interest, specifically surfing, and, therefore, the producer was protected by the defense. See id. at 544. In so concluding the court stated: 22 surfing is of more than passing interest to some. It has created a life-style that influences speech, behavior, dress, and entertainment, among other things. A phenomenon of such scope has an economic impact, because it affects purchases, travel, and the housing market. Surfing has also had a significant influence on the popular culture, and in that way touches many people. It would be difficult to conclude that a surfing documentary does not fall within the category of public affairs. 23 Id. at 546, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 790. 24 Although the theme of Abercrombie's catalog was surfing and surf culture, a matter of public interest, the use of Appellants' names and pictures is quite different from that involved in the Dora case. In Dora, Mickey Dora's contribution to the development of the surf life-style and his influence on the sport was the point of the program. Id . at 543, 18 Cal.Rptr. 790. Dora was depicted in the documentary because his identity directly contributed to the story about surfing which came within the protected public interest. 25 In the current action, there is a tenuous relationship between Appellants' photograph and the theme presented. Abercrombie used Appellants' photograph essentially as window-dressing to advance the catalog's surf-theme. The catalog did not explain that Appellants were legends of the sport and did not in any way connect Appellants with the story preceding it. In fact, the catalog incorrectly identifies where and when the photograph was taken. We conclude that the illustrative use of Appellants' photograph does not contribute significantly to a matter of the public interest and that Abercrombie cannot avail itself of the First Amendment defense. 2 Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie.