Case name: Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.

Opinion filed: 1977-06-28

Docket No.: 76-577

Citations:
• 53 L. Ed. 2d 965
• 97 S. Ct. 2849
• 433 U.S. 562
• 1977 U.S. LEXIS 145

Case holding summaries:
• explaining that the State's interest in providing a right of publicity is "closely analogous to the goals of patent and copyright law, focusing on the right of the individual to reap the reward of his endeavors and having little to do with protecting feelings or reputation"
• holding that the Supreme Court may review state-court judgments that rest on state law when the state court "felt compelled by what it understood to be federal constitutional considerations to construe and apply its own law in the manner it did"
• emphasizing that a line has to be drawn between media reports that are protected and those that are not
• a case involving description of the act would be “ a very different case”
• right of publicity would not serve to prevent reporting of facts about the cannonball act, as opposed to display of the act itself in its entirety
• "There is no doubt that entertainment, as well as news, enjoys First Amendment protection."
• A television station's broadcast televising plaintiffs entire "human cannonball" act on its news program is not privileged under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
• First Amendment does not bar liability for common law tort of unlawful appropriation of "right to publicity" where television station broadcast "human cannonball" act in its entirety without plaintiff's authorization
• holding that state law consistent with the First Amendment can create tort liability for appropriating an individual’s performance rights
• “[T]he State‟s interest in permitting a „right of publicity‟ . . . is closely analogous to the goals of patent and copyright law, focusing on the right of the individual to reap the reward of his endeavors . . . .”
• holding that television news broadcast of plaintiff's entire human cannonball act violated plaintiff's right of publicity
• the press, like others interested in publishing, may not publish copyrighted material without obeying copyright law
• "[T]he protection [afforded by state law] provides an economic incentive for [the performer] to make the investment required to produce a performance of interest to the public. This same consideration underlies the patent and copyright laws long enforced by this Court."
• First Amendment does not bar liability for common law tort of unlawful appropriation of "right to publicity" where television sta- tion broadcast "human cannonball" act in its entirety without plain- tiff's authorization
• broadcast of human cannonball act
• state law can protect right of publicity in uncopyrighted performance
• holding a state may privilege the press by exempting it from a right-of-publicity tort
• holding that the First Amendment does not "privilege respondent [broadcasting company] ... to film and broadcast a prize fight ... or a baseball game ... where the promoters or the participants had other plans for publicizing the event"
• "Petitioner does not seek to enjoin the broadcast of his performance; he simply wants to be paid for it."
• First Amendment does not limit state's ability to protect performer's commercial stake in act by allowing damage action for violations of common law "right to publicity"
• "[W]e are permitted to consult [the opinion] for understanding of the syllabus."
• press must obey copyright laws
• control by one party of health insurance premiums which is adverse to another party who has a beneficial interest in the premium funds can constitute conversion
• "no doubt that entertainment ... enjoys First Amendment protection"
• holding that state law consistent with the First Amendment can create tort liability for appropriating an individual’s performance rights
• “[T]he goals of patent and copyright law . . . focus[] on the right of the individual to reap the reward of his endeavors and hav[e] little to do with protecting feelings or reputation.”
• although a state may privilege its media to broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent, the First Amendment does not require it to do so
• holding that state law preventing unjust enrichment and theft of good will from entertainer's right of publicity not prohibited by First Amendment

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews (1)