8th Circuit dismisses right of publicity claim as copyright preempted

Ray v. ESPN, Inc., No. 14-2117 (8th Cir. Apr. 22, 2015)
 
Steve “Wild Thing” Ray wrestled professionally in
the Universal Wrestling Federation (UWF) from 1990 to 1994. ESPN obtained films
of his wrestling matches and re-telecast them without his consent.  He sued for invasion of privacy and
misappropriation of name.  The Copyright
Act preempts state-law claims if (1) the work at issue is within the subject
matter of copyright as defined in § 102 and 103 of the Copyright Act, and (2) the
state law created right is equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the
general scope of copyright as specified in § 106.
.
The films of Ray’s wrestling performances were within the subject
matter of copyright law. Ray argued that ESPN’s use of his “likeness”
was the true “focal point of this case.” Not so. The cases he cited
were distinguishable because they involved use of an identity to sell something
else. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (use in
ads suggesting endorsement of clothing seller); Brown v. Ames, 201 F.3d 654
(5th Cir. 2000) (use to sell “cassettes and CD’s,” “music
catalogs,” “posters,” and “videotapes,” even though
the defendants “lacked copyrights”). “Brown specifically distinguished Baltimore Orioles—and in so doing, distinguished this case as
well—on the grounds that ‘the right of publicity claimed’ by the plaintiffs in Baltimore Orioles ‘was essentially a
right to prevent rebroadcast of games whose broadcast rights were already owned
by’ other parties.” I find this frustrating because it just announces a
conclusion: use in ads is use of likeness but use of the same copyrighted work
in a broadcast isn’t, at least if defendants own the copyright. But the result’s
right.  “ESPN did not use Ray’s likeness
or name in an advertisement without his permission to promote its commercial
products, and, as the district court correctly noted, Ray’s ‘likenesses could
not be detached from the copyrighted performances that were contained in the
films.”
 
And the rights were equivalent: they were “‘infringed
by the mere act of reproduction, performance, distribution or display'” of
his performances. Dismissal affirmed.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1Gc7YYN

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s