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

Heading: The public interest defense

Text: EA next contends the plaintiffs’ common law right of publicity claim is barred by the public interest defense, and their statutory right of publicity claim is barred by the “public affairs” exemption of California Civil Code § 3344(d). Under the common law public interest defense, “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.” Hilton, 599 F.3d at 912 (quoting Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639, 640 (Ct. App. 1995)). Under the statutory “public affairs” exemption, the right of publicity recognized in California Civil Code § 3344(a) does not apply to the “use 3 Further, the court expressly stated in Keller that, like the Third Circuit in Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013), it “considered the potentially transformative nature of the game as a whole.” 724 F.3d at 1278. 4 Because we are bound by Keller, we do not reach EA’s argument that Keller improperly failed to apply strict constitutional scrutiny to the plaintiffs’ right-of-publicity claims. DAVIS V. ELECTRONIC ARTS 11 of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(d). Although California courts typically analyze the statutory and common law defenses separately, both defenses “protect only the act of publishing or reporting.” Keller, 724 F.3d at 1282. In Keller, we rejected EA’s reliance on these defenses, explaining that, unlike the cases on which EA relied, involving a documentary, a newspaper photograph and a game program, EA was “not publishing or reporting factual data.” Id. at 1283. See Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc., 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 790, 791–92 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding a documentary on surfing featuring a well-known surfer was “a fair comment on real life events”); Montana, 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 640–41 (holding posters containing previously published newspaper images portraying Joe Montana’s football victories were “a form of public interest presentation to which [First Amendment] protection must be extended”); Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 307, 314–15 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding “factual data concerning the players, their performance statistics . . . and video depictions” were a “recitation and discussion of factual data” protected by the First Amendment). “Put simply, EA’s interactive game is not a publication of facts about college football; it is a game, not a reference source.” Keller, 724 F.3d at 1283. It “is a means by which users can play their own virtual football games, not a means for obtaining information about real-world football games.” Id. Madden NFL is indistinguishable in this regard from NCAA Football. Like NCAA Football, although Madden NFL contains some factual data about current and former NFL teams and players, it is “a game, not a reference source” 12 DAVIS V. ELECTRONIC ARTS or a “publication of facts” about professional football. Id. Again, in the absence of intervening higher authority, our holding in Keller controls. See Miller, 335 F.3d at 899. Thus, EA has not established a probability of prevailing on either the common law public interest defense or the “public affairs” exemption of California Civil Code § 3344(d).