Summary
The Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not require Ohio to immunize a television station from liability for broadcasting an entertainer's entire performance without consent. The Court distinguished a state-law right of publicity from false-light and defamation claims, concluding that protecting the performer's proprietary interest in the economic value of his act was constitutionally permissible. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio was reversed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of the United States had jurisdiction to review the Ohio Supreme Court's judgment or whether that judgment rested on an independent and adequate state ground.
- Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments immunize a television station from damages under a state-law right-of-publicity claim when the station broadcasts a performer's entire act without consent.
- Whether First Amendment protections applicable to false-light and defamation claims require the same constitutional privilege in a right-of-publicity action involving appropriation of the performance itself.
Holdings
- The Court had jurisdiction because the Ohio Supreme Court's judgment rested on federal constitutional grounds, or at minimum was compelled by its understanding of federal constitutional law, rather than on an independent and adequate state ground.
- The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the media from a state-law damages remedy when it broadcasts a performer's entire act without consent. The State may require compensation for the unauthorized broadcast, even though the performance is newsworthy and the broadcast occurs in a news program.
Key quotations
“Wherever the line in particular situations is to be drawn between media reports that are protected and those that are not, we are quite sure that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the media when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent.” (574-575)
“We conclude that although the State of Ohio may as a matter of its own law privilege the press in the circumstances of this case, the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not require it to do so.” (579)
Factual background
Hugo Zacchini performed a human-cannonball act in which he was shot approximately 200 feet from a cannon into a net, with each performance lasting about 15 seconds. He performed regularly at the Geauga County Fair, where the public could watch without paying a separate admission fee. After Zacchini objected to filming, a Scripps-Howard reporter returned the next day and videotaped the entire act; the station broadcast the clip with favorable commentary on its 11 o'clock news program. Zacchini alleged that the unauthorized broadcast appropriated and commercialized his professional property and sought damages.
Procedural history
Zacchini performed a human-cannonball act at the Geauga County Fair. A reporter for Scripps-Howard videotaped the entire approximately 15-second performance over Zacchini's objection, and the station broadcast it on its evening news program. Zacchini sued for damages under Ohio law. The trial court granted summary judgment to Scripps-Howard; the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed; the Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio's right-of-publicity claim was constitutionally barred by a press privilege and entered judgment for Scripps-Howard. The United States Supreme Court reversed that judgment.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio was reversed insofar as it held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments required judgment for respondent. The opinion leaves the Ohio courts free to decide the privilege issue solely as a matter of Ohio law.