Case Law No Doubt v. Activision Publ'g, Inc.

No Doubt v. Activision Publ'g, Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (41) Cited in (86) Related (5)

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Susan R. Estrich, Stan Karas and Michael T. Zeller, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant.

Proskauer Rose, Gil N. Peles and Bert H. Deixler, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WILLHITE, J.

*1022 INTRODUCTION

The rock band No Doubt brought suit against the videogame publisher Activision Publishing, Inc. (Activision) based on Activision's release of the Band Hero videogame featuring computer-generated images of the members of No Doubt. No Doubt licensed the likenesses of its members for use in Band Hero, but contends that Activision used them in objectionable ways outside the scope of the parties' licensing agreement. Activision filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, contending that No Doubt cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims for violation of the right of publicity (Civ.Code, § 3344 and common law) and unfair competition (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200) because its use of the No Doubt likenesses is protected by the First Amendment. Activision appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion. Applying the transformative use test first adopted in Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 387, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 126, 21 P.3d 797, we conclude that the creative elements**401 of the Band Hero videogame do not transform the images of No Doubt's band members into anything more than literal, fungible reproductions of their likenesses. Therefore, we reject Activision's contention that No Doubt's right of publicity claim is barred by the First Amendment. In addition, we disagree with Activision's contention that No Doubt must demonstrate that Activision used the likenesses of the band members in an "explicitly misleading" way in order to prevail on its unfair competition claim. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Band Hero Dispute

Defendant Activision is a leading international videogame distributor and the creator and owner of the interactive Band Hero videogame. Band Hero is a version of Activision's Guitar Hero franchise that has sold over 40 million units.1 The game allows players to simulate performing in a rock band in time with popular songs. By choosing from a number of playable characters, known as "avatars," players can "be" a guitarist, a singer, or a drummer. Some of the available avatars are fictional characters created and designed by Activision while others are digital representations of real-life rock stars. Players can also design their own unique fictional avatars. Represented by the avatars of their choosing, players "perform" in various settings, such as venues in Paris and Madrid, a rock show at a shopping mall, and even outer space.

In addition to allowing players to perform over 60 popular songs, Band Hero permits players to create their own music and then play their compositions using an avatar. As with all the Guitar Hero videogames, as players advance in the Band Hero game, they can "unlock" characters and use them to play songs of the players' choosing, including songs the players have composed as well as songs made famous by other artists.

Plaintiff No Doubt is an internationally-recognized rock band featuring Gwen Stefani as its lead singer. No Doubt entered into a Professional Services and Character Licensing Agreement (Agreement) with Activision permitting Activision to include No Doubt as one of the rock bands featured in Band Hero.

The pertinent language of the Agreement is as follows: "This Agreement sets out the terms upon which Artist [No Doubt] has agreed to grant to Activision certain rights to utilize Artist's name(s), likeness(es), logo(s), and associated trademark(s) and other related intellectual property rights (the 'Licensed Property') and to provide Activision certain production and marketing services in connection with Activision's 'Band Hero' video game (the 'Game')." The Agreement specifically provides that "Artists grant to Activision the non-exclusive, worldwide right and license to use the Licensed Property (including Artist's likeness as provided by or approved by Artist) solely in the one (1) Game for all gaming platforms and formats, on the packaging for the Game, and in advertising, marketing, promotional and PR materials for the Game." In a section entitled "Approval Rights," the Agreement states that "Artist's likeness as implemented in the Game (the 'Character Likeness'), any use of Artist's name and/or likeness other than in a 'billing block' fashion on the back of the packaging for the Game, and the b-roll and photography or other representation of the Services or of Artist, shall be subject to Artist's prior written approval. [¶] Activision shall submit each of the above (i.e., the Character Likeness, name uses, and b-roll and photography or other representation) to Artist for review and Artist shall have ten (10) business days to either approve or disapprove.... [¶] Activision shall not be required to submit for approval uses of previously approved assets, provided such uses fall within the rights granted herein (e.g., using a previously approved Character Likeness depiction in multiple advertising materials)."

As part of the Agreement, Activision agreed to license no more than three No Doubt songs for use in "Band Hero," subject to No Doubt's approval over the song choice. (Ultimately, the game included two No Doubt songs.) No Doubt agreed to participate in one day of game production services "for the purposes of photographing and scanning Artist's likeness, and capturing Artist's motion-capture data."

Pursuant to the Agreement, the members of No Doubt participated in a full-day motion capture photography session at Activision's studios so that the band members' Band Hero avatars would accurately reflect their appearances, movements, and sounds. No Doubt then closely reviewed the motion capture photography and the details related to the appearance and features of their avatars to ensure the representations would meet their approval. The end results are avatars that closely match the appearance of each of the No Doubt band members.

Approximately two weeks prior to the release of Band Hero, No Doubt became aware of the "unlocking" feature of the game that would permit players to use No Doubt's avatars to perform any of the songs included in the game, including songs that No Doubt maintains it never would have performed. Two of No Doubt's members could be unlocked at the seventh level of the game, and the remaining members could be unlocked at level nine. The band also learned that female lead singer Gwen Stefani's avatar could be made to sing in a male voice, and the male band members' avatars could be manipulated to sing songs in female voices. The individual band member avatars could be made to perform solo, without their band members, as well as with members of other groups. No Doubt contends that in the numerous communications with No Doubt, Activision never communicated its intention to permit such manipulations of the No Doubt avatars. Rather, No Doubt insists, Activision represented that No Doubt's likenesses within Band Hero would be used only in conjunction with the selected No Doubt songs.

When No Doubt complained about the additional exploitation of their likenesses, Activision admitted that it hired actors to impersonate No Doubt in order to create the representations of the band members' performances of the additional musical works other than the No Doubt songs licensed for the game. No Doubt demanded that Activision remove the "unlocking" feature for No Doubt's avatars, but Activision refused. Activision contends that No Doubt's request came only after the programming had been finalized and the manufacturers had approved the game for manufacture.

Procedural History

No Doubt filed a complaint against Activision in superior court, seeking injunctive relief and damages for Activision's allegedly unauthorized exploitation of No Doubt's name, performances and likenesses. No Doubt alleged six causes of action: (1) fraudulent inducement; (2) violation of statutory and common law right of publicity; (3) breach of contract; unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) injunctive relief; and (6) rescission.2

Activision filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16) specifically with respect to No Doubt's claims for violation of the right of publicity and unfair competition. The superior court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, holding that Activision failed to meet the required threshold showing that the challenged causes of action arose from protected activity in furtherance of free speech rights, and that Activision's literal reproductions of the images of the No Doubt members did not constitute a "transformative" use sufficient to bring them within the protection of the First Amendment. The court found that even if Activision had satisfied its initial burden, No Doubt had demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its claims because it convincingly argued that Activision had contracted away any First Amendment right to exploit the images of the No Doubt members except as provided by the agreement between the parties. As such, the court held, Activision had "waived the anti-SLAPP protections."

This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION
I. Anti-SLAPP Motion Procedure

Section 425.16 provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California...

5 cases
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2021
Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
"...drug to market. This is not the type of case for which the anti-SLAPP statute was intended. (See No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1026, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397 ["The purpose of the statute is ‘to provide a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits that are bro..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2022
Serova v. Sony Music Entm't
"...LLC v. Global Asylum, Inc. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 579, 588, 590, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 412 ; see No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039, fn. 8, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397.)The reasons commonly given for why commercial speech is subjected to greater regulation — a comme..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit – 2013
Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc.
"...2011, the California courts again confronted the right of publicity as it related to video games in No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397 (2011). The case centered on Band Hero, a game that allows player to “simulate performing in a rock band in ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2011
Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc.
"...transformative test to the Band Hero video game that included computer-generated avatars designed to look like the members of the rock band No Doubt. In that case, No Doubt v. Activision, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397 (Cal.App.2011), the avatars were literal recreations of..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2013
Bently Reserve L.P. v. Papaliolios
"...the plaintiff's claims,” the court “must also consider all available defenses to the claims....” (No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1026, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397.) When a cause of action states multiple grounds for relief, “the plaintiff may satisfy its obliga..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 13-2, November 2020 – 2020
Compulsory Patent Licensing in the Time of COVID-19: Views from the United States, Canada, and Europe
"...Cir. 2010); Winter v. DC Comics, 69 P.3d 473 (Cal. 2003); Comedy III Prods. , 21 P.3d 797; No Doubt v. Activision Publ’g, Inc . , 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011); Kirby v. Sega of Am., Inc., 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607 (Ct. App. 2006). 54. Comedy III Prods. , 21 P.3d at 809. 55. Id. 56. Id. ..."
Document | Núm. 13-2, November 2020 – 2020
The 'Essence' of an Invention Is as Important as the Claims
"...Cir. 2010); Winter v. DC Comics, 69 P.3d 473 (Cal. 2003); Comedy III Prods. , 21 P.3d 797; No Doubt v. Activision Publ’g, Inc . , 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011); Kirby v. Sega of Am., Inc., 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607 (Ct. App. 2006). 54. Comedy III Prods. , 21 P.3d at 809. 55. Id. 56. Id. ..."
Document | Núm. 13-1, September 2020 – 2020
Thorny Copyright Issues-Development on the Horizon?
"...2015 WL 13711705 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 10. 21 P.3d 797 (Cal. 2001). 11. 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953). 12. 69 P.3d 473 (Cal. 2003). 13. 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011). 14. Id. at 411. 15. 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). 16. Sarver v. Chartier, 813 F.3d 891, 905 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Zacchin..."
Document | Vol. 130 Núm. 1, October 2020 – 2020
The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
"...sense). (69.) To the extent that livestreaming is captured in a fixed form, copyright protection may apply to that fixation. (70.) 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. (71.) See id. at 405-12. The California appellate court's analysis in the case focused broadly on the misappropriation of the id..."
Document | California Causes of Action – 2022
Intellectual property
"...or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association’ of the two products.” No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. 192 Cal. App.4th 1018, 1037 (2011). “In assessing likelihood of confusion, the standard used is the typical buyer exercising ordinary care, regardless of how ignora..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2013
When Does the Right of Publicity Trump a Video Game Maker’s First Amendment Rights?
"...The Ninth Circuit explained that it was extending the reasoning of a California Court of Appeals case, No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011).[11] In No Doubt, users simulate performing as a rock band in the video game called Band Hero. Users can choo..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2013
Litigation Alert: Ninth Circuit Assesses Use of Player Likenesses in Video Games
"...to strike stage. Moreover, agreeing with Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013), and No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011), the panel found (over the dissent of Judge Sidney R. Thomas) that the existence of other creative elements..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2013
Pinterest Spurs Online Sales - And Trademark Risks
"...is likely to be found to be a misappropriation of that person's right of publicity. In No Doubt v. Activision Publishing Inc., 192 Cal.App. 4th 1018 (Cal. App. 2011), the court ruled that video game producer Activision had violated the rights of publicity of the popular music band No Doubt...."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2011
First Amendment Defeats Right of Publicity Claims Against Electronic Arts’ NCAA Football Video Games
"...2009) (greetings card); Kirby v. Sega of America, Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 47 (Cal. App. 2006) (video game); No Doubt v. Activision, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1018 (Cal. App. 2011) (video game). 4 No. C 09-1967, 2010 WL 530108 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 6, 2010), appeal pending (No. 10-15387). Kelli Sager..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2013
Ninth Circuit Assesses Use Of Player Likenesses In Video Games
"...Moreover, agreeing with Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013), and No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011), the panel found (over the dissent of Judge Sidney R. Thomas) that the existence of other creative elements in the game as a..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 13-2, November 2020 – 2020
Compulsory Patent Licensing in the Time of COVID-19: Views from the United States, Canada, and Europe
"...Cir. 2010); Winter v. DC Comics, 69 P.3d 473 (Cal. 2003); Comedy III Prods. , 21 P.3d 797; No Doubt v. Activision Publ’g, Inc . , 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011); Kirby v. Sega of Am., Inc., 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607 (Ct. App. 2006). 54. Comedy III Prods. , 21 P.3d at 809. 55. Id. 56. Id. ..."
Document | Núm. 13-2, November 2020 – 2020
The 'Essence' of an Invention Is as Important as the Claims
"...Cir. 2010); Winter v. DC Comics, 69 P.3d 473 (Cal. 2003); Comedy III Prods. , 21 P.3d 797; No Doubt v. Activision Publ’g, Inc . , 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011); Kirby v. Sega of Am., Inc., 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607 (Ct. App. 2006). 54. Comedy III Prods. , 21 P.3d at 809. 55. Id. 56. Id. ..."
Document | Núm. 13-1, September 2020 – 2020
Thorny Copyright Issues-Development on the Horizon?
"...2015 WL 13711705 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 10. 21 P.3d 797 (Cal. 2001). 11. 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953). 12. 69 P.3d 473 (Cal. 2003). 13. 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011). 14. Id. at 411. 15. 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). 16. Sarver v. Chartier, 813 F.3d 891, 905 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Zacchin..."
Document | Vol. 130 Núm. 1, October 2020 – 2020
The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
"...sense). (69.) To the extent that livestreaming is captured in a fixed form, copyright protection may apply to that fixation. (70.) 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. (71.) See id. at 405-12. The California appellate court's analysis in the case focused broadly on the misappropriation of the id..."
Document | California Causes of Action – 2022
Intellectual property
"...or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association’ of the two products.” No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. 192 Cal. App.4th 1018, 1037 (2011). “In assessing likelihood of confusion, the standard used is the typical buyer exercising ordinary care, regardless of how ignora..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2021
Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
"...drug to market. This is not the type of case for which the anti-SLAPP statute was intended. (See No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1026, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397 ["The purpose of the statute is ‘to provide a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits that are bro..."
Document | California Supreme Court – 2022
Serova v. Sony Music Entm't
"...LLC v. Global Asylum, Inc. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 579, 588, 590, 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 412 ; see No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039, fn. 8, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397.)The reasons commonly given for why commercial speech is subjected to greater regulation — a comme..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit – 2013
Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc.
"...2011, the California courts again confronted the right of publicity as it related to video games in No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397 (2011). The case centered on Band Hero, a game that allows player to “simulate performing in a rock band in ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2011
Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc.
"...transformative test to the Band Hero video game that included computer-generated avatars designed to look like the members of the rock band No Doubt. In that case, No Doubt v. Activision, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397 (Cal.App.2011), the avatars were literal recreations of..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2013
Bently Reserve L.P. v. Papaliolios
"...the plaintiff's claims,” the court “must also consider all available defenses to the claims....” (No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1026, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 397.) When a cause of action states multiple grounds for relief, “the plaintiff may satisfy its obliga..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2013
When Does the Right of Publicity Trump a Video Game Maker’s First Amendment Rights?
"...The Ninth Circuit explained that it was extending the reasoning of a California Court of Appeals case, No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011).[11] In No Doubt, users simulate performing as a rock band in the video game called Band Hero. Users can choo..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2013
Litigation Alert: Ninth Circuit Assesses Use of Player Likenesses in Video Games
"...to strike stage. Moreover, agreeing with Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013), and No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011), the panel found (over the dissent of Judge Sidney R. Thomas) that the existence of other creative elements..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2013
Pinterest Spurs Online Sales - And Trademark Risks
"...is likely to be found to be a misappropriation of that person's right of publicity. In No Doubt v. Activision Publishing Inc., 192 Cal.App. 4th 1018 (Cal. App. 2011), the court ruled that video game producer Activision had violated the rights of publicity of the popular music band No Doubt...."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2011
First Amendment Defeats Right of Publicity Claims Against Electronic Arts’ NCAA Football Video Games
"...2009) (greetings card); Kirby v. Sega of America, Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 47 (Cal. App. 2006) (video game); No Doubt v. Activision, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1018 (Cal. App. 2011) (video game). 4 No. C 09-1967, 2010 WL 530108 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 6, 2010), appeal pending (No. 10-15387). Kelli Sager..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2013
Ninth Circuit Assesses Use Of Player Likenesses In Video Games
"...Moreover, agreeing with Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013), and No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Ct. App. 2011), the panel found (over the dissent of Judge Sidney R. Thomas) that the existence of other creative elements in the game as a..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial