Steve Ray v. ESPN, Inc.
783 F.3d 1140
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Steve "Wild Thing" Ray, a retired UWF wrestler, sued ESPN for state-law torts after ESPN re-telecast films of his matches recorded during his 1990–1994 wrestling career.
- Ray alleged ESPN broadcast his identity, likeness, name, nickname, and personality without his consent; he did not allege ESPN obtained the films unlawfully or lacked rights to the recordings.
- He asserted four Missouri-law claims: invasion of privacy, misappropriation of name, right of publicity infringement, and interference with prospective economic advantage.
- ESPN removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the Copyright Act preempted Ray’s state-law claims.
- The district court dismissed, holding the filmed wrestling performances are copyrighted audiovisual works and Ray’s claims were equivalent to exclusive rights under §106; Ray appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding the broadcasts fall within copyright subject matter and the state-law rights Ray asserts are equivalent to copyright rights, thus preempted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Copyright Act §301 preempts state-law claims | Ray: claims focus on unauthorized use of his likeness/name, not on mere rebroadcast of copyrighted works | ESPN: broadcasts are reproductions/distributions of copyrighted audiovisual works and thus preempted | Preempted: broadcasts are within copyright subject matter and state claims are equivalent to §106 rights |
| Whether the films are within the subject matter of copyright (§102/§103) | Ray: emphasis on persona/likeness as focal point, not the film per se | ESPN: filmed matches are audiovisual works fixed in a tangible medium | Within subject matter: filmed wrestling performances are original, fixed audiovisual works |
| Whether state-law rights are equivalent to exclusive §106 rights | Ray: publicity/other torts protect different interests and may fall outside preemption | ESPN: state claims, as pleaded, rest on reproduction/performance/distribution/display of films | Equivalent: Ray’s claims arise from the same acts protected by §106 and are therefore preempted |
| Whether tortious-interference claim is distinct from publicity claims and avoid preemption | Ray: interference with prospective economic advantage is conceptually different | ESPN: interference claim depends on the same reproduction/distribution conduct | Preempted: interference claim also subsumed because it’s based on the same copyrighted-work exploitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir.) (copyright preemption test: subject matter and equivalence)
- Nat'l Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir.) (telecasts and broadcasts fall within copyright subject matter)
- Balt. Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir.) (rebroadcast rights implicated by state-law claims are preempted)
- Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.) (distinguishes cases where likeness used in advertising separate from mere republication)
- Brown v. Ames, 201 F.3d 654 (5th Cir.) (right-of-publicity claims not preempted where defendants used names/likenesses to market products independent of copyrighted work)
- Laws v. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.) (right-of-publicity claim preempted where based on reproduction of a copyrighted audio performance)