Matthews v. Wozencraft
22 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1385, 15 F.3d 432, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1025 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas law, the tort of misappropriation of name or likeness protects the commercial value associated with an individual's identity for endorsement or advertising purposes, but it does not extend to the use of a person's life story, especially when the events are part of the public domain.
Facts:
- Creig Matthews and Kim Wozencraft worked as undercover narcotics officers for the Plano and later the Tyler, Texas, police departments.
- During their time as partners, they became romantically involved, lived together, and used illegal drugs both personally and in the course of their investigations.
- On the instruction of their police chief, they fabricated a drug case against a primary target.
- Their undercover work led to over 200 drug cases and 100 arrests, but they also committed perjury during subsequent trials by denying their own drug use.
- After their misconduct was discovered, Matthews and Wozencraft both pleaded guilty to federal civil rights violations and were sentenced to prison.
- While imprisoned, they, along with another inmate, signed a contract to co-author a book based on their experiences.
- After being released and divorcing Matthews, Wozencraft wrote a novel titled 'Rush,' which was based on their shared experiences, and sold the book and movie rights for one million dollars, providing no compensation to Matthews.
Procedural Posture:
- Creig Matthews filed a diversity suit in the U.S. District Court against Kim Wozencraft and others, alleging misappropriation, breach of contract, and improper division of marital assets.
- The defendants filed motions for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing all of Matthews's claims.
- Matthews (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 a person's life story as the basis for a fictionalized novel constitute tortious misappropriation of their name or likeness under Texas law?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Jerry E. Smith
No. The use of a person's life story in a fictionalized novel does not constitute misappropriation because the tort protects the commercial value of a name or likeness, not the factual events of an individual's life. The court reasoned that the tort of misappropriation is intended to prevent others from cashing in on the goodwill or commercial value associated with a person's identity, such as using a celebrity's image to endorse a product. Matthews's life story, however interesting, does not possess the kind of intrinsic commercial value that the tort protects. The court distinguished a life story from a name or likeness, noting that unlike a celebrity's endorsement value which can be diluted by overuse, the facts of an individual's life do not deteriorate with repeated use and, in this case, the book actually increased public interest in Matthews. Furthermore, because the events were highly publicized and a matter of public record, they were in the public domain and available for use. The court also held that even if a valid claim existed, it would be barred by the First Amendment's protection of speech, as 'Rush' is a work of fiction concerning a matter of public interest (police corruption) and not merely a disguised commercial advertisement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the misappropriation tort in Texas, establishing a clear distinction between the commercial appropriation of a person's valuable identity and the telling of their life story. It solidifies the principle that factual events, especially those in the public domain, cannot be 'owned' by an individual to the exclusion of others. The ruling provides strong protection for authors and filmmakers creating biographical or fictionalized works based on real people and events, reinforcing First Amendment principles over an individual's desire to control or profit from their own narrative.
