close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

FLEX by Fenwick is the only service created by an AmLaw 100 firm that provides flexible and cost-effective solutions for interim in-house legal needs to high-growth companies.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Litigation Alert: Ninth Circuit Rules on Copyright Preemption of Right-of-Publicity Claims

Last week, in Maloney v. T3 Media, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that claims under state right-of-publicity law are preempted by the Copyright Act “when a likeness has been captured in a copyrighted artistic visual work and the work itself is being distributed for personal use.” Case No. 15-55630 (9th Cir. April 5, 2017). This decision offers significant protection to creators depicting or otherwise incorporating real individuals into their work and clarifies that, for purposes of determining copyright preemption of a right of publicity claim, it is the way in which the name or likeness is used, rather than the type of copyrightable work at issue, that is relevant.

The Right of Publicity and Copyright Act Preemption

All states have common-law doctrines and/or statutes prohibiting the commercial exploitation of a person’s name or likeness without their consent. Although these so-called “right-of-publicity” laws vary from state to state, generally they provide an individual with the ability to sue to prevent the use of their name, picture, or other aspect of their persona on or in connection with a product or service, without his or her consent.

Often, the likeness at issue in a right-of-publicity claim is embodied in a copyrighted work, such as a book, work of art, film, or photograph. The Copyright Act provides the creator of a work, not its “subject,” with certain exclusive rights to exploit that copyrighted work. Thus, at times, an individual’s right to control the use of his or her likeness under state right-of-publicity laws can clash with a copyright owner’s exclusive rights in a copyrighted work. Section 301 of the Copyright Act expressly provides that, in those instances, the copyright takes precedence, and any “rights under the common law or statutes of a State that are equivalent to copyright” are preempted. As a result, some uses of a person’s likeness that might otherwise be covered by the right of publicity may instead lie within the ambit of the Copyright Act.

Courts must determine when a right-of-publicity claim is preempted and when it is not.  The Ninth Circuit applies a two-part test to evaluate when a state law claim, such as the right of publicity, will be preempted by copyright: The court must decide (1) whether the state law’s subject matter falls within the scope of copyright, and (2) whether the rights asserted under state law are equivalent to the rights granted by the Copyright Act. While this test seems straightforward, its application in right-of-publicity cases has not always seemed consistent or sufficiently clear. In Maloney, the Ninth Circuit clarified prior decisions and provided a clearer roadmap for applying the preemption doctrine in right-of-publicity cases.

The Maloney Case: How a Likeness is Used Determines Preemption, not Content of Work

The NCAA maintains a collection of photographs of NCAA games, to which it owns or controls the copyrights. Defendant T3Media operated a website, authorized by the NCAA, through which consumers could purchase and download copies of those photographs. Patrick Maloney and Tim Judge, former NCAA athletes, filed a class action asserting claims under California’s right-of-publicity and unfair competition laws against T3Media, arguing that T3Media’s sale, without their consent, of images depicting games in which they played, constituted commercial exploitation of their names and likenesses, in violation of their right of publicity. T3Media brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike, a device under California law allowing defendants to dispose early of meritless suits targeting conduct protected under the First Amendment. The district court granted the motion on the grounds that the Copyright Act preempted the plaintiffs’ claims.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The plaintiffs had argued that photographs of people inherently encompassed likenesses, and thus “photograph-based” publicity rights claims automatically fell outside the subject matter of copyright, and so could never be preempted. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, making clear that preemption determinations should not focus on the content of a work, but on the way in which an individual’s likeness was used. In this instance, the court held that where T3Media distributed, for personal use, copyrighted works that simply captured a likeness, the plaintiffs’ right-of-publicity claims interfered with the exclusive rights of the copyright holder and were preempted.  As the court stated, “Plaintiffs’ position, by contrast, would give the subject of every photograph a de facto veto over the artist’s rights under the Copyright Act, and destroy the exclusivity of rights that Congress sought to protect….” Op. at p. 30.

The court distinguished T3Media’s use from an earlier case, Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which held a right-of-publicity claim was not preempted where the defendant used photographs containing the plaintiff’s likenesses to advertise t-shirts. 265 F.3d 994, 1003 (9th Cir. 2001). The court expressly noted that a right-of-publicity claim is not preempted when a person’s name or likeness is used “on merchandise or in advertising,” contrasting such uses with situations where the right-of-publicity claim seeks to control an artistic work in itself. Therefore, because T3Media distributed the copyrighted NCAA photographs themselves, rather than using those photographs on other merchandise or in advertising, T3Media’s use fell within the scope of the Copyright Act, and the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted.

Contrast With Other NCAA Right of Publicity Decisions

The Maloney decision is the latest in a series of right-of-publicity actions brought by former NCAA athletes against uses of their images. For example, in Keller v. Elec. Arts, Inc. (In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation), the Ninth Circuit permitted the right-of-publicity claims of another former NCAA athlete against the publisher of a series of sports video games which allowed players to play using depictions of football players similar to actual NCAA athletes to go forward. 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013). The publisher had filed an anti-SLAPP motion based on a First Amendment defense, and a different Ninth Circuit panel held that the game’s use of athletes’ likenesses was not sufficiently transformative to support a First Amendment defense. The Maloney decision describes Keller in a footnote as a case involving the use of a plaintiff’s likeness to “sell a video game,” even though the likenesses were not used in marketing or advertising but were nevertheless a feature that made the game more desirable to consumers.

In Maloney, the Ninth Circuit importantly confirmed that the Copyright Act’s preemption provision equally protects the owners of photographic works. It further made clear that where a right-of-publicity claim seeks effectively to “control the artistic work itself,” it interferes with the copyright owner’s exclusive rights and will be preempted.​​​​​​​​​​