Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball
94 Cal.App.4th 400, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 307, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 12785 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment right to free expression protects the use of a public figure's name, likeness, and statistics in factual, historical accounts of public interest, which outweighs the individual's economic right of publicity. Such uses are also exempt from liability under California's right of publicity statute as matters of 'public affairs.'
Facts:
- Plaintiffs were four professional baseball players who played in the major leagues for various periods between 1932 and 1948.
- During their careers, plaintiffs were paid for their performances and understood their games, photographs, and statistics were being widely covered and disseminated by the media to promote public interest in baseball.
- Defendants Major League Baseball (Baseball) and its agents produced media guides, programs, and operated official websites providing historical baseball information, including rosters, box scores, game summaries, and video clips.
- Baseball also authorized The PHoenix Communications Group, Inc. to produce television shows and other audiovisual programs that contained historical footage from past games.
- Without the plaintiffs' consent or additional compensation, Baseball included plaintiffs' names, statistics, still photographs, and video footage in its various media products as part of historical accounts of the sport.
- The uses of plaintiffs' identities were presented as factual, historical data, such as listing them on team rosters, describing their memorable plays in World Series programs, or showing video clips of their performances.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class-action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court (a trial court) against Baseball for violating their statutory and common law rights of publicity.
- The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
- The California Court of Appeal, First District (an intermediate appellate court), affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification in a separate appeal.
- Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the trial court asserting their individual claims.
- Baseball moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Baseball.
- Plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of former professional baseball players' names, statistics, and likenesses in factual, historical accounts of baseball games and history, presented in game programs, websites, and video clips, violate the players' common law or statutory right of publicity?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
No. The use of former players' names, statistics, and likenesses in factual, historical accounts of baseball does not violate their common law or statutory right of publicity. The court conducted a balancing test between the players' right of publicity and the First Amendment right to free expression. It found that the information used by Baseball—player statistics, descriptions of play, and video depictions—are 'fragments from baseball's mosaic' and historical facts of significant public interest. Such expression is not 'commercial speech,' as it does not propose a commercial transaction, but rather informs and entertains the public about history. The court distinguished this from using a celebrity's identity in an advertisement for an unrelated product. The public's interest in the free dissemination of baseball history far outweighs the players' negligible economic interests. Furthermore, the uses fall within California Civil Code section 3344(d)'s statutory exemption for 'news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account,' because baseball's history is a matter of 'public affairs' due to its cultural significance as the 'national pastime.'
Analysis:
This decision strengthens First Amendment protections for the use of factual and historical information about public figures, particularly in sports and entertainment. It clarifies that the right of publicity does not grant individuals a monopoly over their own history. The ruling establishes a critical distinction between using a celebrity's likeness to report on their field of fame (protected speech) versus using it to endorse an unrelated commercial product (unprotected commercial speech). This precedent provides significant legal cover for sports leagues, documentarians, and news organizations in chronicling historical events without fear of right-of-publicity claims from the subjects of their work.
