## Facts

- Cardtoons, L.C., an Oklahoma company, produced a 130-card set of parody trading cards featuring caricatures and humorous commentary about major league baseball players and professional baseball culture.
- Most cards depicted identifiable active players using similar names, recognizable caricatures, team colors, and player-specific jokes; some cards presented salary-themed cartoons, political/baseball cartoons, team-logo caricatures, and retired-player parodies.
- Except for a subset of “Spectra” cards, the backs included a disclaimer stating the cards were parody and not licensed by Major League Baseball Properties or the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA).
- MLBPA, as assignee and administrator of active players’ publicity rights through a group licensing program, sent letters to Cardtoons and its printer alleging violation of players’ property/publicity rights and threatening legal action.
- After receiving MLBPA’s letter, the printer stopped printing the cards, affecting Cardtoons’ ability to produce and sell the product.
- Cardtoons filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the cards did not violate MLBPA’s asserted Oklahoma statutory and common-law publicity rights and could be marketed without consent.
- The district court found the cards protected by the First Amendment and treated Oklahoma publicity law as limited in the parody context; MLBPA appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether MLBPA’s threats of enforcement created an actual controversy sufficient for federal declaratory-judgment jurisdiction.
2. Whether unlicensed, for-profit parody trading cards depicting identifiable major league players are protected expression under the First Amendment notwithstanding Oklahoma statutory and common-law rights of publicity asserted by MLBPA.

## Decision

- The court held the district court had declaratory-judgment jurisdiction because MLBPA’s explicit threats and the printer’s cessation created a real and immediate controversy with concrete business effects.
- The court affirmed judgment for Cardtoons, concluding the parody cards constituted expression protected by the First Amendment.
- The court held that, as applied to these parody cards, MLBPA’s asserted proprietary publicity interests must yield to Cardtoons’ free-expression interests.
- The court left publicity rights intact in general but limited their application where enforcement would suppress protected parody and commentary about public figures.

## Legal Principles

- Declaratory-judgment jurisdiction exists when threatened enforcement and resulting adverse effects establish a ripe, concrete dispute between parties with adverse legal interests.
- Parody and humorous commentary about public figures are protected expression; profit motive does not remove First Amendment protection when the work is meaningfully expressive rather than mere source-identifying advertising.
- Rights of publicity, including statutory and common-law variants, are subject to First Amendment limits; enforcement may be barred where it would suppress commentary and parody concerning public figures.
- In conflicts between expressive uses of identity and proprietary publicity claims, courts may balance speech interests against economic interests, giving substantial weight to commentary on public figures and limiting publicity remedies that function as speech restraints.
- Clear signals that a work is not licensed (including disclaimers) may reduce confusion-based concerns and support treatment of the work as commentary rather than passing off.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed declaratory relief for Cardtoons, holding that MLBPA’s threatened enforcement created a justiciable controversy and that the First Amendment protected Cardtoons’ unlicensed parody trading cards, preventing MLBPA from applying Oklahoma publicity rights to stop their production and sale.


Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1996)