You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Canas v. Bay Entertainment

Citation: Not availableDocket: 1 CA-CV 20-0127

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; August 26, 2021; Arizona; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves an appeal by several professional models and social media influencers (Appellants) against Bay Entertainment, LLC, for unauthorized use of their images in advertisements for Denim Diamonds, a nightclub. Initially filed in April 2018, the suit alleges violations of publicity rights, false light, and the Lanham Act. The superior court dismissed the claims, ruling that Arizona law recognizes the right of publicity only for soldiers, and asserting that federal copyright law preempts these claims. Additionally, it found the false light claim insufficient as the association with the nightclub was not deemed offensive to a reasonable person. On appeal, the court reversed the lower court’s decision, acknowledging Arizona's common law right of publicity for civilians and determining that federal copyright law does not preempt claims based on likeness and personal branding. The court also found that the false light claim warranted further proceedings, as the alleged misrepresentation could be offensive to a reasonable person. The case was remanded for further action consistent with these findings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Common Law Right of Publicity

Application: The court recognized that Arizona law supports a common law right of publicity for civilians, reversing the lower court's dismissal of such claims.

Reasoning: Appellants argue against the dismissal of their claims, asserting that Arizona acknowledges a common law right of publicity for civilians and that federal copyright law does not preempt their claims since their identities, not just their images, were misappropriated.

False Light Invasion of Privacy

Application: The court determined that the superior court erred in dismissing the false light claims, as the allegations could support a finding that the false implication was highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Reasoning: The superior court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings for Bay Entertainment regarding the Appellants' false light claim. The Appellants contended that this implication would be objectionable to a reasonable person, and a jury could find it highly offensive given their roles as models and influencers.

Preemption by Federal Copyright Law

Application: The court found that claims based on non-copyrightable personal attributes, such as likenesses and brands, are not preempted by the Copyright Act.

Reasoning: The court distinguished this case, noting that Appellants derive their income from modeling, acting, and social media influencing, and their claims are based on misappropriation of their brands and likenesses, not on any copyrightable elements of the photographs.