Opinion ID: 781994
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of the Rogers Test

Text: 84
85 The first prong of Rogers requires a determination of whether there is any artistic relationship between the title and the underlying work. Rogers, 875 F.2d at 999. Parks contends that a cursory review of the Rosa Parks title and the lyrics demonstrates that there is no artistic connection between them. Parks also submits two articles in which members of OutKast are purported to have admitted that the song was not about her. As further evidence, she offers a translation of the lyrics of the song Rosa Parks, derived from various electronic dictionaries of the rap vernacular to demonstrate that the song truly has nothing to do with Parks herself. The translation of the chorus reads as follows: 86 Be quiet and stop the commotion. OutKast is coming back out [with new music] so all other MCs [mic checkers, rappers, Master of Ceremonies] step aside. Do you want to ride and hang out with us? OutKast is the type of group to make the clubs get hypedup/excited. 87 Pl. Br. at 5. 88 Defendants respond that their use of Parks' name is metaphorical or symbolic. They argue that the historical association between Rosa Parks and the phrase move to the back of the bus is beyond dispute and that Parks' argument that the song is not about her in a biographical sense is simply irrelevant. 89 The district court was of the opinion that the artistic relationship between the title and the song was so obvious that the matter is not open to reasonable debate. Parks, 76 F.Supp.2d at 782. The court said: 90 Rosa Parks is universally known for and commonly associated with her refusal... to ... move to the back of the bus. The song at issue makes unmistakable reference to that symbolic act a total of ten times. Admittedly, the song is not about plaintiff in a strictly biographical sense, but it need not be. Rather, defendants' use of plaintiff's name, along with the phrase move to the back of the bus, is metaphorical and symbolic. 91 Id. at 780. 92 Contrary to the opinion of the district court, we believe that the artistic relationship between the title and the content of the song is certainly not obvious and, indeed, is open to reasonable debate for the following reasons. 93 It is true that the phrase move to the back of the bus is repeatedly used in the hook or chorus of the song. When the phrase is considered in the context of the lyrics, however, the phrase has absolutely nothing to do with Rosa Parks. There could be no stronger, no more compelling, evidence of this fact than the admission of Dré (André Dré Benjamin) that, We (OutKast) never intended for the song to be about Rosa Parks or the civil rights movement. It was just symbolic, meaning that we comin' back out, so all you other MCs move to the back of the bus. J.A. at 333. 5 The composers did not intend it to be about Rosa Parks, and the lyrics are not about Rosa Parks. The lyrics' sole message is that OutKast's competitors are of lesser quality and, therefore, must move to the back of the bus, or in other words, take a back seat. We believe that reasonable persons could conclude that there is no relationship of any kind between Rosa Parks' name and the content of the song — a song that is nothing more and nothing less than a paean announcing the triumph of superior people in the entertainment business over inferior people in that business. Back of the Bus, for example, would be a title that is obviously relevant to the content of the song, but it also would not have the marketing power of an icon of the civil rights movement. 6 Choosing Rosa Parks' name as the title to the song unquestionably enhanced the song's potential sale to the consuming public. 94 The Rogers court made an important point which clearly applies in this case. The court said, [p]oetic license is not without limits. The purchaser of a book, like the purchaser of a can of peas, has a right not to be misled as to the source of the product. Rogers, 875 F.2d at 997. The same is also true regarding the content of a song. The purchaser of a song titled Rosa Parks has a right not to be misled regarding the content of that song. While the expressive element of titles admittedly requires more protection than the labeling of ordinary commercial products, [a] misleading title with no artistic relevance cannot be sufficiently justified by a free expression interest, id. at 999, and the use of such a title, as in the present case, could be found to constitute a violation of the Lanham Act. Including the phrase move to the back of the bus in the lyrics of this song, in our opinion, does not justify, as a matter of law, the appropriation of Rosa Parks' name for the title to the song, and the fact that the phrase is repeated ten times or fifty times does not affect the question of the relevancy of the title to the lyrics. 95 The district court made the following correct observation: 96 Plaintiff Rosa Parks is a well-known public figure who has been recognized as an international symbol of freedom, humanity, dignity and strength for over 43 years. Plaintiff's notoriety arose from her heroic stance against racial inequality in the South when on December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger and move to the back of the bus. This one defiant act precipitated a 381-day bus boycott that ended segregation on public transportation and ultimately sparked the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. 97 Parks, 76 F.Supp.2d at 777. 98 While Defendants' lyrics contain profanity and a great deal of explicit language (together with a parental warning), they contain absolutely nothing that could conceivably, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered, explicitly or implicitly, a reference to courage, to sacrifice, to the civil rights movement or to any other quality with which Rosa Parks is identified. If the requirement of relevance is to have any meaning at all, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the title Rosa Parks is not relevant to the content of the song in question. The use of this woman's name unquestionably was a good marketing tool — Rosa Parks was likely to sell far more recordings than Back of the Bus — but its use could be found by a reasonable finder of fact to be a flagrant deception on the public regarding the actual content of this song and the creation of an impression that Rosa Parks, who had approved the use of her name in connection with the Tribute album, had also approved or sponsored the use of her name on Defendants' composition. 99 It is certainly not dispositive that, in response to an interview following the filing of this lawsuit, one of the OutKast members said that using Rosa Parks' name was symbolic. Where an artist proclaims that a celebrity's name is used merely as a symbol for the lyrics of a song, and such use is highly questionable when the lyrics are examined, a legitimate question is presented as to whether the artist's claim is sincere or merely a guise to escape liability. Our task, it seems to us, is not to accept without question whatever purpose Defendants may now claim they had in using Rosa Parks' name. It is, instead, to make a determination as to whether, applying the law of Rogers, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the question of whether the title is artistically relevant to the content of the song. As noted above, crying artist does not confer carte blanche authority to appropriate a celebrity's name. Furthermore, crying symbol does not change that proposition and confer authority to use a celebrity's name when none, in fact, may exist. 100 It appears that the district court's rendition of summary judgment for OutKast was based on the court's conclusion that Defendants' use of Plaintiff's name as the song's title was metaphorical and symbolic. Id. at 780. The obvious question, however, is symbolic of what? There is no doubt that Rosa Parks is a symbol. As the parties agree, she is an international symbol of freedom, humanity, dignity and strength. J.A. at 79. There is not even a hint, however, of any of these qualities in the song to which Defendants attached her name. In lyrics that are laced with profanity and in a hook or chorus that is pure egomania, many reasonable people could find that this is a song that is clearly antithetical to the qualities identified with Rosa Parks. Furthermore, the use of Rosa Parks' name in a metaphorical sense is highly questionable. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase denoting one kind of object or action is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1420 (Phillip Babcock Gove, ed.1976). The use of the phrase go to the back of the bus may be metaphorical to the extent that it refers to OutKast's competitors being pushed aside by OutKast's return and being forced to take a back seat. The song, however, is not titled Back of the Bus. It is titled Rosa Parks, and it is difficult to equate OutKast's feeling of superiority, metaphorically or in any other manner, to the qualities for which Rosa Parks is known around the world. We believe that reasonable people could find that the use of Rosa Parks' name as the title to this song was not justified as being metaphorical or symbolic of anything for which Rosa Parks is famous. To the contrary, reasonable people could find that the name was appropriated solely because of the vastly increased marketing power of a product bearing the name of a national heroine of the civil rights movement. 101 We do not mean to imply that Rosa Parks must always be displayed in a flattering manner, or that she should have the ability to prevent any other characterization of her. She is a celebrity and, as such, she cannot prevent being portrayed in a manner that may not be pleasing to her. As the court noted in Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Productions, 25 Cal.3d 860, 160 Cal.Rptr. 352, 603 P.2d 454, 460 (1979) (Bird J., concurring), [t]he right of publicity derived from public prominence does not confer a shield to ward off caricature, parody and satire. It has been held, for example, that, [p]arodies of celebrities are an especially valuable means of expression because of the role celebrities play in modern society. Cardtoons, 95 F.3d at 972. The present case, however, does not involve any claim of caricature, parody or satire. It involves, instead, the use of a celebrity's name as the title to a song when it reasonably could be found that the celebrity's name has no artistic relevance to the content of the song. It involves, in short, a reasonable dispute whether the use of Rosa Parks' name was a misrepresentation and false advertising or whether it was a legitimate use of a celebrity's name in some recognized form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. 102 In Rogers, the court, in discussing the title to the movie Ginger and Fred, observed that there is no doubt a risk that some people looking at the title `Ginger and Fred' might think the film was about Rogers and Astaire in a direct, biographical sense. For those gaining that impression, the title is misleading. 875 F.2d at 1001. Likewise, in the present case, some people looking at the title Rosa Parks might think the song is about Rosa Parks and for those gaining that impression (as twenty-one consumer affidavits filed in this case indicate happened, J.A. at 342-62), the title is misleading. 7 This, standing alone, may not be sufficient to show a violation of the Lanham Act if the title is nevertheless artistically relevant to the content of the underlying work. 103 There is a clear distinction, however, between the facts in Rogers and the facts in the present case. In Rogers, the court had no difficulty in finding that the title chosen for the movie Ginger and Fred had artistic relevance to the content of the movie. The central characters in the film are nicknamed `Ginger' and `Fred,' and these names are not arbitrarily chosen just to exploit the publicity value of their real life counterparts but instead have genuine relevance to the film's story. 875 F.2d at 1001. The Rogers court further pointed out that the title Ginger and Fred is entirely truthful as to its content in referring to the film's fictional protagonists who are known to their Italian audience as `Ginger and Fred.' Id. In other words, the title in Rogers was obviously relevant and truthful as to the film's content, because the film was about the main characters known in the film as Ginger and Fred. In contrast, it cannot be said that the title in the present case, Rosa Parks, is clearly truthful as to the content of the song which, as OutKast admits, is not about Rosa Parks at all and was never intended to be about Rosa Parks, and which does not refer to Rosa Parks or to the qualities for which she is known. 104 Furthermore, the contrast between the real Ginger and Fred and the fictional Ginger and Fred in the film served the director's purpose of satirizing contemporary television and, in that sense, the title was an integral element of the film and the film maker's artistic expressions. Id. OutKast's only explanation for the use of Rosa Parks' name in the title of their song, however, is that the name Rosa Parks is a symbol. It is, indeed, a symbol, but the question presented is how the symbol of Rosa Parks, a symbol of freedom, humanity, dignity, and strength, is artistically related to the content of a song that appears to be diametrically opposed to those qualities. The song is not claimed to be a satire, a parody or some other form of artistic expression that would be protected under the broad umbrella of the First Amendment. The mere fact that the phrase move to the back of the bus is an apt description of OutKast's attitude toward entertainers they regard as lesser human beings is not, in our view, a justification, as a matter of law, for appropriating the name of Rosa Parks. 105 Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.2002) involved facts that are remarkably different from the facts of this case. In applying the first prong of Rogers, the Ninth Circuit in Mattel stated: 106 We expect a title to describe the underlying work, not to identify the producer, and Barbie Girl does just that. 107 The Barbie Girl title presages a song about Barbie, or at least a girl like Barbie. The title conveys a message to consumers about what they can expect to discover in the song itself; it's a quick glimpse of Aqua's take on their own song. The lyrics confirm this: The female singer, who calls herself Barbie, is a Barbie girl, in [her] Barbie world. She tells her male counterpart (named Ken), Life in plastic, it's fantastic. You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere/Imagination, life is your creation. And off they go to party. The song pokes fun at Barbie and the values that Aqua contends she represents. 108 . . . . 109 Under the first prong of Rogers, the use of Barbie in the song title clearly is relevant to the underlying work, namely, the song itself. As noted, the song is about Barbie and the values Aqua claims she represents. 110 Id. at 901-902 (emphasis added). 111 In sharp contrast to Mattel, it is highly questionable that the facts in the present case satisfy the first prong of Rogers. Whereas the title Barbie Girl was clearly relevant to the lyrics of the song, (the song is about Barbie and the values Aqua claims she represents), it cannot be said that the title Rosa Parks is clearly relevant to the lyrics of the song in this case. While the lyrics of Barbie Girl are certainly not flattering to the wholesome image preferred by the creator of Barbie (the song pokes fun at Barbie and the values that Aqua contends she represents), parody is an artistic form of expression protected by the First Amendment. In contrast, there has been no attempt to defend Rosa Parks on the ground that it constitutes a parody of Rosa Parks or a satire of Rosa Parks or some other form of artistic expression involving Rosa Parks herself. 112 The Mattel case, therefore, in our view, is completely distinguishable from the facts of the present case. If anything, we believe its application of Rogers and the result of that application to the title and lyrics of Barbie Girl could support a conclusion that the title Rosa Parks has no artistic relevance to the lyrics of Defendants' song. The result would be that Defendants cannot satisfy even the first prong of Rogers in order to justify their appropriation of Rosa Parks' name. 113 A case that is more similar to the present case than Mattel is Seale v. Gramercy Pictures, 949 F.Supp. 331 (E.D.Pa.1996). In Seale, defendants produced and distributed a movie entitled Panther, which was a combination of fiction and historical fact involving Bobby Seale and the Black Panther Party, founded by Seale and Huey P. Newton in 1966. Seale, Newton and another leader of the Black Panther Party, Eldridge Cleaver, were all portrayed in the movie by actors. Similar to the stipulation in the present case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff was a well-known public and historical figure and that, [t]he Plaintiff's name and his role in the Black Panther Party may be found in most history books discussing the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Id. at 335. 114 In addition to the movie, various defendants in the case produced: (1) a book titled Panther: A Pictorial History of the Black Panthers and the Story Behind the Film; (2) a videotape of the movie; and (3) a CD/cassette containing a collection of the songs from the movie. The promotional cover for the home video release of the movie mentioned Seale's name and had a photograph of the actors who portrayed Seale, Newton and Cleaver in the movie. The cover of the musical CD/cassette contained the same photograph that was on the home video, together with another photograph of a scene from the movie. Seale, who had never consented to the use of his name for the movie, the book, the videotape or the CD/cassette, brought suit alleging violations of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and his common-law right of publicity. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. 115 The Seale court found that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's common-law right of publicity claim as it concerned the movie, the pictorial history book, and the videotape. The court had no trouble finding that the creation of a movie and history book that integrated fictitious people and events with historical people and events surrounding the emergence of the Black Panther Party in the late 1960's was protected by the First Amendment. The court also found that the use of the Plaintiff's name and likeness on the cover of the pictorial history book and on the cover for the home video are clearly related to the content of the book and the film, the subject matter of which deals with the Black Panther Party and the Plaintiff's role as co-founder of the Party. Id. at 337 (emphasis added). 116 The use of the plaintiff's name and likeness on the cover of the musical CD/cassette, however, was an entirely different matter. The music contained on the CD/cassette consisted of various songs composed by different musicians. The court pointed out: 117 Clearly, the use of the Plaintiff's name and likeness on the cover of the musical CD/cassette does not relate to the content in the CD/cassette in the same manner as the use of the Plaintiff's name and likeness on the cover of the home video and pictorial history book relates to the content of the film and pictorial history book — the subject matter of which concerns the Black Panther Party and the Plaintiff's role as co-founder of the Party. The film and pictorial history book tell the story of the Black Panther Party and the Plaintiff's role in that Party in the late 1960's; the musical CD/cassette is merely a collection of different songs performed by different musicians, which songs have no direct connection to the Plaintiff or the history of the Black Panther Party. There is a genuine issue of material fact, therefore, whether the use of the Plaintiff's name and likeness on the cover of the musical CD/cassette is clearly related to the content of the film Panther and serves as an advertisement for the film, or whether the Defendants' use of the Plaintiff's name and likeness on the cover of the CD/cassette is a disguised advertisement for the sale of the CD/cassette. See Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 1004-05 (2d Cir.1989). Id. at 337-38 (emphasis added). 8 118 The court made the same findings in virtually the same language regarding Seale's claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, again applying Rogers and reaching the same result, i.e., that a genuine issue of material fact was presented. Id. at 340. The court, therefore, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on both the plaintiff's common law right of publicity claim and Lanham Act claim as those claims related to the defendants' use of Bobby Seale's name and likeness on the CD/cassette. 9 119 We reach the same conclusion in the present case. There is a genuine issue of material fact whether the use of Rosa Parks' name as a title to the song and on the cover of the album is artistically related to the content of the song or whether the use of the name Rosa Parks is nothing more than a misleading advertisement for the sale of the song. 120
121 In Rogers, the court held that if the title of the work is artistically relevant to its content, there is no violation of the Lanham Act unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work. 875 F.2d at 999. The court noted with reference to the first prong of the Rogers analysis: 122 A misleading title with no artistic relevance cannot be sufficiently justified by a free expression interest. For example, if a film-maker placed the title Ginger and Fred on a film to which it had no artistic relevance at all, the arguably misleading suggestions as to source or content implicitly conveyed by the title could be found to violate the Lanham Act as to such a film. 123 Id. 124 In discussing the second prong of its analysis, in the context of using a celebrity's name in the title of some artistic work, the court explained: 125 [T]itles with at least minimal artistic relevance to the work may include explicit statements about the content of the work that are seriously misleading. For example, if the characters in the film in this case had published their memoirs under the title The True Life Story of Ginger and Fred, and if the film-maker had then used that fictitious book title as the title of the film, the Lanham Act could be applicable to such an explicitly misleading description of content. But many titles with a celebrity's name make no explicit statement that the work is about that person in any direct sense; the relevance of the title may be oblique and may become clear only after viewing or reading the work. As to such titles, the consumer interest in avoiding deception is too slight to warrant application of the Lanham Act.... Where a title with at least some artistic relevance to the work is not explicitly misleading as to the content of the work, it is not false advertising under the Lanham Act. 126 Id. at 1000 (footnote omitted). 127 We considered all the facts presented to us and concluded that, with reference to the first prong of the Rogers analysis, the issue of artistic relevance of the title Rosa Parks to the lyrics of the song is highly questionable and cannot be resolved as a matter of law. However, if, on remand, a trier of fact, after a full evidentiary hearing, concludes that the title is used in some symbolic or metaphorical sense, application of the Rogers analysis, under the particular facts of this case, would appear to be complete. In the present case, the title Rosa Parks make[s] no explicit statement that the work is about that person in any direct sense. In other words, Defendants did not name the song, for example, The True Life Story of Rosa Parks or Rosa Parks' Favorite Rap. 128 In short, whether the title Rosa Parks has any artistic relevance to the content of the song is an issue that must be resolved by a finder of fact following an evidentiary hearing and not by a judge as a matter of law upon the limited record submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment. If, on remand, the finder of fact determines that OutKast placed the title Rosa Parks on a song to which it had no artistic relevance at all, then this would constitute a violation of the Lanham Act and judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff. However, if the finder of fact determines that the title is artistically relevant to the song's content, then the inquiry is at an end because the title is not explicitly misleading as to the content of the work. In that event, judgment should be entered in favor of Defendants.