Jim Brown's Right Of Publicity Claim Revived By Keller Victory On Appeal

by Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Contact

A Ninth Circuit panel decision issued on July 31, 2013, has revived NFL legend Jim Brown's state law right of publicity claims against video game maker Electronic Arts, Inc. ("EA"). Back in March 2009, Brown filed an action in federal district court against EA alleging that it had misappropriated and used his likeness without authorization in EA's enormously popular video game series, Madden NFL. Brown's claims included a federal law claim for violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and state law claims for violation of his California state law rights of publicity. The district court judge dismissed Brown's Lanham Act claim, applying the so-called "Rogers test" to determine that EA's First Amendment rights outweighed the public interest in avoiding confusion as to whether or not Brown sponsored or endorsed the video game. The judge then refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brown's state law claims.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision regarding Brown's Lanham Act claim. However, the court left the door open for Brown to pursue his right of publicity claims in state court. In a footnote, the court stated: "We emphasize that this appeal relates only to Brown's Lanham Act claim. Were the state causes of action before us, our analysis may be different and a different outcome may obtain." Tellingly, the court cited to another decision it would issue the very same day: Keller v. Elec. Arts, Inc., No. 10-15387 (July 31, 2013).

Like Brown, Sam Keller and his coplaintiffs were college athletes whose images and personas EA had exploited in various video games. Also like Brown, the Keller plaintiffs argued that in acting without their authorization, EA had violated their state law rights of publicity. When EA's anti-SLAPP motion to strike was denied by the federal district court judge, EA appealed. This time, however, the Ninth Circuit panel sided with the athletes.

The court noted that unlike the Lanham Act, which is designed to protect the public from the risk of consumer confusion, California's right of publicity laws are designed to protect "a form of intellectual property in one's person that society deems to have some social utility." In determining how to balance EA's First Amendment rights with athletes' intellectual property rights in their own personas, the court declined EA's invitation to extend the Rogers test (which is decidedly tilted in the alleged misappropriator's favor) to right of publicity claims.

Instead, the court applied the "transformative use test" previously formulated by the California Supreme Court and applied by multiple courts in other right of publicity cases, such as Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001) (finding that lithographs and T-shirts bearing a likeness of The Three Stooges were not transformative), No Doubt v. Activision Publ'g, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1018 (2011) (finding that literal re-creations of No Doubt band members as avatars in a video game about rock bands were not transformative), and Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013) (finding that a realistic digital depiction of a college football player in a game about college football was not transformative). Under the transformative use test, courts examine the work in question to determine whether it "adds significant creative elements so as to be transformed into something more than a mere celebrity likeness or imitation." Comedy III, 25 Cal. 4th at 391.

Noting that EA re-created Keller as exactly what he was—the starting quarterback for Arizona State and Nebraska—and that the game's setting was identical to where the public found Keller during his collegiate career—on the football field—the court held that EA's use of Keller's likeness did not contain significant transformative elements. As a result, the court held, "EA's use of the likenesses of college athletes like Samuel Keller in its video games is not, as a matter of law, protected by the First Amendment." In a split-panel decision, the district court's judgment was affirmed, and Keller was given the green light to proceed with his action.

From Jim Brown's perspective, although the Lanham Act failed to provide him with the protection he sought, Keller makes clear that his California right of publicity claims are viable, and that he may proceed with those claims in state court. Furthermore, those state law claims will be deemed to have been filed at the same time as his previous federal court complaint was filed—March 2009—since state law limitation periods are tolled for such claims while they remain pending in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). Thus, Brown may be entitled to recover damages from as far back as March 2007.

If the state court applies the transformative use test in the same manner as the Keller court, Brown may once again reclaim control over when and how his likeness and persona are utilized.

- See more at: http://www.manatt.com/SportsLaw/Jim_Brown_s_Right_Of_Publicity_Claim__Revived_By_Keller_Victory_On_Appeal.aspx#sthash.3bOR2Xaa.dpuf

A Ninth Circuit panel decision issued on July 31, 2013, has revived NFL legend Jim Brown's state law right of publicity claims against video game maker Electronic Arts, Inc. ("EA"). Back in March 2009, Brown filed an action in federal district court against EA alleging that it had misappropriated and used his likeness without authorization in EA's enormously popular video game series, Madden NFL. Brown's claims included a federal law claim for violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and state law claims for violation of his California state law rights of publicity. The district court judge dismissed Brown's Lanham Act claim, applying the so-called "Rogers test" to determine that EA's First Amendment rights outweighed the public interest in avoiding confusion as to whether or not Brown sponsored or endorsed the video game. The judge then refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brown's state law claims.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision regarding Brown's Lanham Act claim. However, the court left the door open for Brown to pursue his right of publicity claims in state court. In a footnote, the court stated: "We emphasize that this appeal relates only to Brown's Lanham Act claim. Were the state causes of action before us, our analysis may be different and a different outcome may obtain." Tellingly, the court cited to another decision it would issue the very same day: Keller v. Elec. Arts, Inc., No. 10-15387 (July 31, 2013).

Like Brown, Sam Keller and his coplaintiffs were college athletes whose images and personas EA had exploited in various video games. Also like Brown, the Keller plaintiffs argued that in acting without their authorization, EA had violated their state law rights of publicity. When EA's anti-SLAPP motion to strike was denied by the federal district court judge, EA appealed. This time, however, the Ninth Circuit panel sided with the athletes.

The court noted that unlike the Lanham Act, which is designed to protect the public from the risk of consumer confusion, California's right of publicity laws are designed to protect "a form of intellectual property in one's person that society deems to have some social utility." In determining how to balance EA's First Amendment rights with athletes' intellectual property rights in their own personas, the court declined EA's invitation to extend the Rogers test (which is decidedly tilted in the alleged misappropriator's favor) to right of publicity claims.

Instead, the court applied the "transformative use test" previously formulated by the California Supreme Court and applied by multiple courts in other right of publicity cases, such as Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001) (finding that lithographs and T-shirts bearing a likeness of The Three Stooges were not transformative), No Doubt v. Activision Publ'g, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1018 (2011) (finding that literal re-creations of No Doubt band members as avatars in a video game about rock bands were not transformative), and Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013) (finding that a realistic digital depiction of a college football player in a game about college football was not transformative). Under the transformative use test, courts examine the work in question to determine whether it "adds significant creative elements so as to be transformed into something more than a mere celebrity likeness or imitation." Comedy III, 25 Cal. 4th at 391.

Noting that EA re-created Keller as exactly what he was—the starting quarterback for Arizona State and Nebraska—and that the game's setting was identical to where the public found Keller during his collegiate career—on the football field—the court held that EA's use of Keller's likeness did not contain significant transformative elements. As a result, the court held, "EA's use of the likenesses of college athletes like Samuel Keller in its video games is not, as a matter of law, protected by the First Amendment." In a split-panel decision, the district court's judgment was affirmed, and Keller was given the green light to proceed with his action.

From Jim Brown's perspective, although the Lanham Act failed to provide him with the protection he sought, Keller makes clear that his California right of publicity claims are viable, and that he may proceed with those claims in state court. Furthermore, those state law claims will be deemed to have been filed at the same time as his previous federal court complaint was filed—March 2009—since state law limitation periods are tolled for such claims while they remain pending in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). Thus, Brown may be entitled to recover damages from as far back as March 2007.

If the state court applies the transformative use test in the same manner as the Keller court, Brown may once again reclaim control over when and how his likeness and persona are utilized.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Contact
more
less

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.