- Court deciding the case: United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
- Parties: Plaintiff; Dustin Hoffman Defendants: 1st Defendant Capital Cities, 2nd Defendant-Appellant L.A Magazine Inc
- Procedural history/ Case nature: In the year 1997, a complaint was filed by Hoffman in the district court against Capital cities/ABC inc. the parent company of L.A magazine. ABC inc. took the case to federal court, and Hoffman included L.A Magazine (LAM) as a defendant. The district court bench trial found in favor of Hoffman on all of his claims and against L.A Magazine rejecting L.A Magazine argument that, its actions was protected by the First Amendment. However the court found ABC Inc. not liable for L.A Magazine’s action. L.A Magazine appeals the judgment entered by the district court.
- Facts of the case: Dustin Hoffman, an actor, starred in a movie in 1982, “Tootsie” in character playing a male who is dressed as a woman. From the film, a still photo showed Hoffman posed in a long sleeved red decorated evening dress and high heels, with a background of American flag. In 1997, Los Angeles Magazine published in “Fabulous Hollywood Issue” in which an article titled “Grand Illusions” used famous movies still photo. Alterations were made to the still photos, using computer technology, to portray the actors as wearing spring 1997 fashion. The article had other actors from different movie scene feature in the article. In the section featuring Hoffman, The American flag background and Hoffman’s head were not changed, but his body and the red long-sleeved decorated dress were replaced by a body of a model. The model was in the similar pose, dressed in a spaghetti-strapped, cream, silk evening dress and high heel sandals. The text indicated the still photo as from “Tootsie” the movie with captions that read, “Dustin Hoffman isn’t drags in Lauren Ralph heels and a cream-colored silk gown by Tyler Richard.” L.A Magazine had not obtained authority from either Hoffman or Columbia Pictures, the copyright holders, to make the publications of altered photograph.
- Issues: Whether the publication of the altered Hoffman photo by L.A Magazine falls under protection by the First Amendment protection of Noncommercial speech? Whether the publication violated any state or federal law or Hoffman’s rights?
- Holding/Legal Rules: Reversed. The Appeal court held that, L.A Magazine was entitled to the protection accorded by the First Amendment noncommercial speech. It was further held that, Hoffman did not show by clear and convincing evidence that L.A Magazine acted in actual malice in publishing the altered photograph.
- Reasoning/Rationale: The initial court did not state that it believed one statement and disbelieve the remainder of the testimony. Even where the district court would have determined that part of the quote of the testimony was worth believing, it did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that, L.A Magazine intended to mislead its subscribers. Thus, the single ambiguous statement in that context of the article and the magazine is insufficient to strip the magazine of its First Amendment protection.
Work Cited
Dustin Hoffman, Plaintiff-Appelle v. Capital Cities/ABC and L.A Magazine (2001). Web.
Kevorkian, C. “Reinterpreting Jurisprudence: The Right of Publicity and Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Vol.37:85 (2003): 85-103.Web.
Platt, J and Wimmer, K. “Right of Publicity Clashes With Free Expression in ‘Tootsie’ Case.” The First Amendment and the Media. Media Institute. n.d. Web. 29th January 2013.
