Opinion ID: 2620459
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of Identity in the Movie

Text: The court’s resolution in ETW informs this analysis. There, despite the defendants’ sale of a painting clearly depicting professional golfer Tiger Woods celebrating his first victory at the Masters Golf Tournament in 1997, this court held that the defendant “added a significant creative component of his own to Woods’s identity,” such that the work contained “significant transformative elements which make it especially worthy of First Amendment protection and also less likely to interfere with the economic interest protected by Woods’[s] right of publicity.” ETW -7- No. 12-5715 Moore v. Weinstein Co. Corp., 332 F.3d at 938. Therefore, even if Moore could demonstrate appropriation, a successful publicity claim requires the lack of these creative components, akin to a “depiction or imitation of the celebrity [that] is the very sum and substance of the work in question.” Comedy III Prods., Inc. 21 P.3d at 809. In this regard, Moore’s claim is weaker than Tiger Woods’s claim in ETW. We already explained that the Restatement generally does not protect the use of one’s identity in a movie. See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 47 cmt. c. And as we explained when we adopted the transformative elements test, publicity claims trump the First Amendment if the “artistic expression takes the form of a literal depiction or imitation of a celebrity for commercial gain, directly trespassing on the right of publicity without adding significant expression beyond that trespass.” ETW Corp., 332 F.3d at 935 (emphasis added); cf. Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Assoc., 95 F.3d 959, 969 (10th Cir. 1996) (extending First Amendment protection to baseball parody cards and noting “[s]peech that entertains, like speech that informs, is protected by the First Amendment”). Without a doubt, the Movie added significant expressive elements to any purported use of Moore’s identity.