Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Free Speech Meets the Publicity Tort: Transformative Use Analysis in Right of Publicity Law

2008; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 13; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/10811680802174604

1532-6926

Matthew D. Bunker,

Law in Society and Culture

Abstract The intersection of intellectual property law and First Amendment concerns has become increasingly contested. The right of publicity has proven particularly difficult to reconcile with free speech values. Recently, some courts have begun importing a “transformative use” approach from copyright law to reconcile tensions between publicity rights and free expression. This article analyzes the problems with the transformative use doctrine and suggests the outlines of an alternative approach. Notes 1 See Haelan Labs., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866, 868 (2d Cir. 1953). 2 Thomas J. McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy 6/25 (2d ed. 2003). 3 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994). 4 See, e.g., Comedy III Prods. Inc., v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 21 P.3d 797, 808 (Cal. 2001). 5 See Marshall Leaffer, Understanding Copyright Law 427 (3d ed. 1999). 6 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2000). 7 Id. 8 Marvin Worth Prods. v. Superior Films Corp., 319 F. Supp. 1269, 1273 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). 9 See Laura G. Lape, Transforming Fair Use: The Productive Use Factor in Fair Use Doctrine, 58 Alb. L. Rev. 677 (1995). 10 Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). 11 Id. at 455. 12 Pierre N. Leval, Commentary, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990). 13 Id. at 1111. 14 510 U.S. 569 (1994). 15 Id. at 579 (quoting Leval, supra note 12, at 1111). 16 Id. at 582–83. 17 Id. at 582–92. 18 Jeremy Kudon, Note, Form Over Function: Expanding the Transformative Use Test for Fair Use, 80 B.U.L. Rev. 579 (2000). 19 Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890). 20 William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383 (1960). 21 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953). 22 Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley, What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1161, 1173–74 (2006) (citing Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Genericity: Trademaks as Language in the Pepsi Generation, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev. 397, 405 (1990)). 23 For a survey of the First Amendment tests applied to the publicity tort, see, e.g., Russell S. Jones Jr., The Flip Side of Privacy: The Right of Publicity, The First Amendment, and Constitutional Line Drawing – A Presumptive Approach, 39 Creighton L. Rev. 939, 948–57 (2006); Mark S. Lee, Agents of Chaos: Judicial Confusion in Defining the Right of Publicity-Free Speech Interface, 23 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 471, 488–98 (2003). 24 21 P.3d 797 (Cal. 2001). 25 Cal. Civ. Code § 990 (West 1998). 26 21 P.3d at 801. 27 Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 744 (1998). 28 21 P.3d at 802. 29 Id. (citing, inter alia, Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)). 30 Id. (quoting Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods., 25 Cal. 3d 860, 868 (1979)). 31 Id. at 803 (citing Madow, Private Ownership of Public Image: Popular Culture and Publicity Rights, 81 Cal. L. Rev. 125 (1993)). 32 21 P.3d at 803–04. 33 Id. at 804. 34 Id. 35 Id. at 805. 36 433 U.S. 562 (1977). 37 21 P.3d at 805. 38 433 U.S. at 576. 39 21 P.3d at 806. 40 Id. at 807. 41 Id. 42 17 U.S.C. 107 (1) (2000). 43 21 P.2d at 808. 44 Id. at 808 (citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994)). 45 Id. 46 Id. 47 Id. at 809. 48 Id. 49 Id. 50 Id. at 810. 51 Id. 52 Id. 53 Id. 54 Id. at 811. 55 Id. 56 Id. 57 The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, invoked transformation as part of its ruling that a painting of golfer Tiger Woods did not violate the golfer's right of publicity. ETW, Inc. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 332 F.2d 915, 938 (6th Cir. 2003). 58 30 Cal. 4th 881 (2003). 59 Id. at 886. 60 Id. at 890. 61 Id. 62 See, e.g., Dr. Seuss Enter. v. Penguin Books, 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997). 63 30 Cal. 4th at 891. 64 Gloria Franke, Note: The Right of Publicity vs. the First Amendment: Will One Test Ever Capture the Starring Role?, 79 S. Cal. L. Rev. 945, 973 (2006) (citing Winter v. DC Comics, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431 (Ct. App. 2002), rev'd, 69 P.3d 473 (Cal. 2003)). 65 Id. 66 433 U.S. 564 (1977). 67 Id. at 576. 68 U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8. 69 Dogan & Lemley, supra note 22, at 1163. 70 Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, Fitting Publicity Rights into Intellectual Property and Free Speech Theory: Sam, You Made the Pants Too Long!, 10 DePaul-LCA J. Art & Ent. 283, 306 (2000). 71 Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 95 F.3d 959, 974 (10th Cir. 1996). 72 Jed Rubenfeld, The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality, 112 Yale L.J. 1, 20 (2002). 73 See id. See also, e.g., Lawrence Lessig, Copyright's First Amendment, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1057 (2001); Kathleen K. Olson, First Amendment Values in Fair Use Analysis, Journalism Monographs (2004); Neil Weinstock Netanel, Locating Copyright Within the First Amendment Skein, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (2001). 74 See generally Leaffer, supra note 5, at 77-79. 75 See Matthew D. Bunker, Eroding Fair Use: The “Transformative” Use Doctrine After Campbell, 7 Comm. L. & Pol'y 1, 9-16 (2002). 76 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998). 77 Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, The More Things Change, the Less They Seem “Transformed”: Some Reflections on Fair Use, 46 J. Copyright Soc'y 251, 258 n.43 (1998). 78 Castle Rock Entm't, Inc. v. Carol Publ'g Group, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 260, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 79 Castle Rock Entm't, Inc. v. Carol Publ'g Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 1998). 80 Id. 81 Bunker, supra note 75, at 14. 82 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251 (1903). 83 21 P.3d 797, 811 (Cal. 2001). 84 Indeed, the dissenting opinion in Miller v. California, which created the current constitutional test for obscenity, noted that the test is based on “vague and highly subjective aesthetic, psychological, and moral tests [which] do not provide meaningful guidance for law enforcement officials, juries, or courts.” 413 U.S. 19, 40 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting). 85 This point was explored at length in Michael Suppappola, Is Tiger Woods's Swing Really a Work of Art: Defining the Line Between the Right of Publicity and the First Amendment, 28 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 57, 75–78 (2005). 86 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003). 87 Id. at 918. 88 Id. at 936. 89 Id. 90 Id. 91 Id. at 959 (Clay, J., dissenting). 92 Id. (Clay, J., dissenting). 93 For example, as one commentator has noted, the majority did not make it clear if the transformative test was an affirmative defense, as the Comedy III court had done, and it was thus unclear which party had the burden of proof. Moreover, the ETW Corp. court seemed to apply three different tests, including the transformative test, a test derived from the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, and another standard derived from Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Assoc., 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1996). “Moreover, assuming the court did apply the ‘transformative elements’ test as an affirmative defense, the test would have been moot because the court had already found that Woods's right of publicity had not been violated.” Suppappola, supra note 85, at 76. 94 Matthew D. Bunker, Transforming the News: Copyright and Fair Use in News-Related Contexts, 52 J. Copyright Soc'y 309, 325-26 (2005). 95 Id. 96 See Matthew D. Bunker, Justice and the Media: Reconciling Fair Trials and a Free Press 30 (1997). 97 Id. at 32. 98 Bunker, supra note 75, at 21–22. 99 Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and the Right of Publicity, 40 Hous. L. Rev. 903 (2003). 100 Id. at 923. 101 Schuyler M. Moore, Sex, Lies, and Videotape: The First Amendment vs. the Right of Publicity for Expressive Works, Ent. L. Rep., Nov. 2003, at 9. 102 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1996). 103 John Doe a/k/a Tony Twist v. TCI Cablevision, 110 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. 2003). 104 95 F.3d at 976. 105 McCarthy, supra note 2, at 8/62. 106 Suppappola, supra note 85, at 87–88.