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 >

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
13th 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: Transforming Uses of a Celebrity's Likeness Are Protected by the First Amendment

On September 25, 2006, the California Court of Appeal ruled in Kirby v. Sega of America, Inc., No. B183820 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 2006), that the First Amendment provides a complete defense for misappropriation of a celebrity's likeness and image where the defendant's use is transformative. The court further held that in order for something to be sufficiently transformative it only requires some new expression. Commentary, parody or satire is not also required.

Practical Impact

This decision further clarifies the application of a First Amendment defense to several related causes of action, including statutory and common law infringement of the right of publicity, misappropriation of likeness and unfair competition. Video games and other media can appropriate aspects of a celebrity's likeness so long as they are sufficiently combined with new and different characteristics.

Background

Appellant Keirin Kirby is a singer, choreographer and designer best known for her role in the early 90's band Deee-Lite. Its single, Groove is in the Heart, and its video were in heavy rotation in 1990 on radio and MTV. Going by the moniker "Lady Kier," Kirby claims that she has created a distinctive persona and public identity resulting from "her signature costumes and lyrical expression." Lady Kier's likeness is a blend of 60's retro funk and space-age futurism. Lady Kier has pink hair, wears brightly colored mini-skirts or unitards and stiletto-heeled, knee-high platform boots and uses the catch phrase "ooh la la."

Respondent Sega is the distributor of a Japanese video game called "Space Channel 5" or SC5. The principal character in the game is a female reporter called "Ulala". Ulala's character appeared to look and dress very similarly to Lady Kier. Ulala also used the catch phrase "ooh la la." The original Japanese version of SC5 was released in 1999. The next June, an American version followed. In July 2000, PD*3 Tully Co., a firm hired by Sega to launch a version in Europe, contacted Kirby regarding the use of Groove is in the Heart to promote the game. Kirby declined their request. Over the next three years, several other versions of the game were released for use on various gaming platforms.

Kirby filed suit in 2003, alleging that the Ulala character in SC5 constituted: (1) common law infringement of the right of publicity; (2) misappropriation of likeness under California Civil Code § 3344; (3) violation of the Lanham Act; (4) unfair competition; (5) interference with prospective business advantage; and (6) unjust enrichment. Central to all of Kirby's claims was whether or not Ulala infringed upon Lady Kier's likeness. Sega moved for summary judgment arguing that Ulala did not, as a matter of law, misappropriate Kirby's likeness. Even assuming that Ulala did appropriate Lady Kier's likeness, that appropriation was protected speech. Although enough similarities existed between the two characters so that a question of fact remained whether Ulala did infringe upon Lady Kier, it granted Sega's motion on the First Amendment grounds.

First Amendment Defense

Notwithstanding the remaining issues of fact, the trial court's order granting Sega's motion for summary judgment was affirmed because the protection afforded by the First Amendment and California Constitution, Article 1, gave a complete defense to misappropriation. The court found that video games, although commercial speech, are creative, expressive works entitled to protection unless they are false or misleading. In cases such as this, the free exchange of ideas can conflict with a celebrity's right to protect their identity.

In order to balance these conflicting interests, the court relied upon the transformative standard set out by the California Supreme Court in Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387, 406-409 (2001), and Winter v. DC Comics, 30 Cal. 4th 881, 890-892 (2003). Works where the celebrity's image is an element of the likeness, but that also contain distinct expressive elements, are not misappropriation. In Comedy III, an artist rendered line drawings of images of the Three Stooges on t-shirts, while Winter addressed a series of comics with characters formed from combining the facial features of singers Edgar and Johnny Winter with the body of slugs. The line drawing in Comedy III was not protected as it was a very literal rendition of the Three Stooges. However, the defendant in Winter was protected as he added distinctive slug characteristics, thereby transforming the likeness of the Winters brothers.

Based on this precedent, the appellate court upheld the trial court's application of the First Amendment defense. Though Kirby and Ulala shared many similar traits, sufficient differences – dress and dance moves in particular – existed to find that even if Sega video game creators had used Kirby's Lady Kier as inspiration they had also added their own unique and highly protected creative expression.

Kirby also argued that, while some new expression was added to the video game, the transformative work should not be protected because the game lacks any "element of caricature, lampoon, or parody." The court rejected Kirby's attempt to limit the defense to works that comment on public figures. The California Supreme Court in Winter found that the issue turned on whether or not the public figure's image was transformed through new expression and not whether that transformation occurred for the purpose of satire, parody or serious social commentary. The appellate court declined Kirby's invitation to "refine" the transformative test in favor of a predominant use test adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court.

Attorney's Fees

Kirby also appealed the grant of attorney's fees to Sega. Under California Civil Code Section 3344(a), California's statute governing misappropriation of celebrity's likeness, the prevailing party in action under that section "shall" be awarded attorney's fees and costs. The trial court awarded $608,000 in fees and cost to the defendant. Kirby argued that although Section 3344(a) used "shall," it should be interpreted permissively. The appellate court rejected this argument and found that the legislature intended a mandatory grant of attorney's fees. The court then remanded the case to the trial court to determine the appropriate additional amount of fees Sega was entitled to for its appeal.

The appellate court's decision in Kirby reaffirms the Constitutional boundary of actions for misappropriation of a celebrity's likeness. Difficulty remains in identifying the exact quantum of new expression necessary to permit characters based upon or inspired by public figures, though it is now clear that parody, satire, and/or socio-political commentary is not required for the transformative defense to apply.


For further information, please contact:

Patrick E. Premo, Litigation Partner
ppremo@fenwick.com, 650.335.7963

Marybeth Milionis, Litigation Associate
mmilionis@fenwick.com, 650.335.7246

This update is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in the law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice. Readers who have particular questions about these issues should seek advice of counsel.

© 2006 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.