Jones v. Corbis Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109084
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Jones sues Corbis for violation of publicity rights by displaying her name/image on Corbis websites to solicit licenses.
- Corbis operates multiple image-licensing websites and licenses images via agreements with photographers and cultural institutions, acting as an assignee/distributor of licenses.
- Ten red-carpet photographs of Jones were displayed; she consented to posing and to being photographed; notices at some events indicated consent to exploitation of name/likeness.
- Jones argues the online display for licensing sales goes beyond her consent and violates publicity rights; Corbis argues implied consent and industry practice authorize the display.
- The court previously addressed similar claims in Alberghetti v. Corbis, denying class certification and granting summary judgment on limitations; this decision follows related analysis.
- The court grants Corbis’s summary-judgment motion on consent, denies Jones's cross-motion for summary judgment, and deems class certification moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent to display for licensing sales | Jones did not consent to online display for licensing. | Consent is implied from Jones's red-carpet posing and industry practice; displaying samples to solicit sales is within consent. | Summary judgment for defendant on consent |
| First Amendment or copyright-preemption defenses | Publicity claim protected by First Amendment; not preempted by Copyright Act. | Consent governs; defenses fail in light of implied consent. | Not necessary to reach after consent ruling; defenses rejected by disposition on consent |
| Class certification viability | Claims are suitable for class action. | Claims are individualized; class not appropriate. | Mooted; court notes certification would be inappropriate even if claims survived |
Key Cases Cited
- Newton v. Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455 (9th Cir. 1994) (consent may be implied from conduct given industry context)
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n., 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834; 865 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1994) (consent may be inferred from conduct and expectations of privacy)
- Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of common law misappropriation)
- Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998) (elements of publicity/privacy claims and consent)
- KNB Enterprises v. Greg Matthews, 78 Cal. App. 4th 362 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2000) (distinguishes assignment of photography rights from consent to broad distribution)