Intellectual Property

Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc. — Study Notes

724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013)

Study notes for Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

The use of a celebrity's likeness in video games can be protected under the First Amendment if transformative.
Professor Notes

In Brown v. Electronic Arts, the Ninth Circuit addressed the tension between the right of publicity and First Amendment protections. The court emphasized that artistic expression, particularly in the realm of video games, is afforded substantial protection under the First Amendment. This case illustrates how the use of a celebrity's likeness in a commercial product like a video game can be deemed transformative when it serves a significant expressive purpose. Professors may highlight how this ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving the portrayal of public figures in various media formats.

Additionally, the decision invites discussion about the balance of rights between individuals and the commercial interests of corporations. While the ruling affirms artistic freedom, it also raises questions about the limits of that freedom in relation to individuals’ rights to control the use of their identity, especially in increasingly realistic and immersive media environments.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Explain the significance of the First Amendment in this case.
  2. 2What criteria did the court use to determine if EA's use was transformative?
  3. 3Discuss the implications of this ruling for the video game industry.
  4. 4How does California law define the right of publicity?
  5. 5What are the contrasting views on the use of a likeness for artistic versus commercial purposes?
  6. 6Can the holding in this case apply to non-commercial uses of a likeness?
  7. 7What might be the impact of this ruling on future celebrity endorsements?
Mnemonic Device

EA = Expression Allowed.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Hannah Montana v. BowersIn Hannah Montana, the use of the likeness was deemed non-transformative because it did not add significant creative expression; thus, it violated the right of publicity.
Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'nCardtoons dealt with parodic use rather than realistic representation, illustrating how the context of use can shift the analysis of First Amendment protections.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Protecting artistic expression allows for cultural enrichment and supports innovation in entertainment and media industries.

Against the Rule

Allowing broad First Amendment protections may erode individual rights to control one's own image, especially for public figures who deserve some recognition of their economic interests.

Class Discussion Points
  • What are the broader implications of this ruling on the entertainment industry?
  • How do rights of publicity vary from state to state, and what does that mean for artists?
  • To what extent should public figures have control over commercial use of their likeness?
Exam Angle

In exams, this case may be tested with a focus on the interplay between the right of publicity and First Amendment rights, especially in creative works like video games.

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.