## Facts

- Dustin Hoffman, a well-known film actor, had avoided commercial licensing of his name and likeness outside film-related work.
- A magazine published a March 1997 fashion spread (“Grand Illusions”) using a film still of Hoffman from *Tootsie*.
- The magazine digitally altered the still to depict Hoffman as wearing designer clothing and heels and included a caption naming him and describing the designer items.
- The magazine did not obtain consent from Hoffman or from the copyright holder of the original film still.
- The court found the spread was intended, at least in part, to increase the magazine’s commercial appeal and to promote identified designers to consumers.
- Hoffman sued for statutory and common-law misappropriation of likeness under California law and for false endorsement/association under the Lanham Act.
- Defendants asserted First Amendment protection and Copyright Act preemption; Hoffman also sought to hold the parent company liable.

## Issues

1. Whether the magazine’s unauthorized use of Hoffman’s name and digitally altered likeness in a fashion spread constituted misappropriation under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and the common-law right of publicity.
2. Whether the altered image and caption created a likelihood of consumer confusion as to Hoffman’s endorsement or association under Lanham Act § 43(a).
3. Whether the First Amendment protected the use as editorial or artistic expression.
4. Whether the Copyright Act preempted Hoffman’s state-law publicity claims based on use of a copyrighted film still.
5. Whether the parent company could be held liable under ratification or alter-ego theories.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Hoffman against the magazine on the California statutory and common-law publicity claims.
- The court found the magazine liable under Lanham Act § 43(a) for false endorsement/false association.
- The court rejected the First Amendment defense because the use was commercial in character and conveyed a misleading endorsement implication.
- The court held the state-law publicity claims were not preempted by the Copyright Act because they protected Hoffman’s persona, not the copyrighted work.
- The court granted the parent company’s Rule 52(c) motion due to insufficient evidence of ratification or alter ego.
- The court awarded Hoffman $1,500,000 in compensatory damages against the magazine, found eligibility for punitive damages (amount reserved), and awarded attorney’s fees and costs.

## Legal Principles

- Using a recognizable celebrity’s name and likeness without consent for commercial advantage can violate Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and the common-law right of publicity.
- A publication may incur Lanham Act § 43(a) liability when use of a celebrity’s identity in a promotional context is likely to cause consumer confusion about endorsement, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- First Amendment protection is limited where a use functions as commercial exploitation and communicates a misleading implication of endorsement.
- Right-of-publicity claims are not Copyright Act–preempted when they include an extra element—unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person’s identity—distinct from rights in the copyrighted image.
- A parent entity is not liable for a subsidiary’s publication absent sufficient proof of ratification or alter-ego conditions.

## Conclusion

The court held that a magazine’s digitally altered use of Dustin Hoffman’s likeness and name to market a fashion spread and designers constituted misappropriation and false endorsement, was not shielded by the First Amendment, and was not preempted by copyright law, while dismissing claims against the parent company for lack of proof.


Hoffman v. Cap. Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999)