Hoffman Wins $1.5 Million in Suit Against Magazine
A federal judge on Friday ordered Los Angeles Magazine to pay Dustin Hoffman $1.5 million in compensatory damages because it published without consent a computer-altered photo of him in a woman’s evening gown and high heels.
“The 1st Amendment provides extremely broad protection, but it does not permit unbridled exploitive speech at the expense of Mr. Hoffman and his distinguished career,” U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian Jr. said in a 20-page ruling.
The judge said the actor was also entitled to punitive damages, and he set a hearing next week to fix the amount.
“Dustin stood up for his rights, and he was vindicated.” said his lawyer, Charles N. Shephard. “This is a victory for all celebrities.”
A spokesman at ABC, the magazine’s parent company, expressed disappointment and promised an appeal.
Hoffman, a two-time Academy Award winner, sued the magazine over a March 1997 spread that used a computer to dress famous movie stars, some long dead, in the latest spring fashions.
A head shot of Hoffman, taken from his appearance in drag in the movie “Tootsie,” was attached to a picture of a male model wearing a silk evening gown and high heels.
The caption next to the composite read: “Dustin Hoffman isn’t a drag in a butter-colored silk gown by Richard Tyler and Ralph Lauren heels.” A buyer’s guide in the back of the magazine listed prices and stores where the items could be bought.
The magazine said it was immune from liability under the 1st Amendment. Hoffman maintained that he was entitled to protect his name from commercial exploitation. The judge agreed with Hoffman.
In a four-day, nonjury trial in federal court last week, Hoffman testified that he has a policy of refusing to endorse commercial products, although he appeared in a Volkswagen television ad in the late 1960s when he was a rising star.
Most top movie stars are reluctant to plug commercial products because they fear that people will think their careers are on the wane, Hoffman and other witnesses testified.
“The right to use plaintiff’s name and likeness is an extremely valuable commodity and privilege, not only because of Mr. Hoffman’s stature as an actor, but because he does not knowingly permit commercial use of his identity,” the judge wrote.
Tevrizian said the magazine’s editors “made absolutely no effort” to contact Hoffman or any other stars before it used their photos. He said the magazine knew or should have known that Hoffman would turn it down.
Tevrizian criticized the publication for concealing from the photo archive that provided the “Tootsie” photo that it planned to doctor the picture by computer. The archive forbids any such alterations.
Responding to the magazine’s 1st Amendment defense, Tevrizian said the constitutional safeguard does not protect knowingly false speech.
He said Los Angeles Magazine intended to create the false impression among readers that Hoffman actually posed as a “shill” for the Richard Tyler gown and Ralph Lauren shoes.
The magazine had also argued that Hoffman was not entitled to sue because the “Tootsie” photo belonged not to him but to the holder of the movie’s copyright, Columbia Pictures.
Tevrizian rejected that claim as well, saying the actor’s right to protect the use of his name and image is separate from who holds the copyright.
In addition to Hoffman’s likeness, the layout included computer-altered pictures of Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, John Travolta, Marlene Dietrich, Vivien Leigh and Jane Russell, among others.
The judge said their photographs “were manipulated and cannibalized to such an extent that the celebrities were commercially exploited and were robbed of their dignity, professionalism and talent. To be blunt, the celebrities were violated by technology.”
“Allowing this type of deceptive conduct to continue under the guise of 1st Amendment protection would lead to further technological mischief.”
Although an expert witness testified for Hoffman that the actor was entitled to $3 million to $5 million in compensation, the judge awarded him $1.5 million. In calculating that amount, he said he considered Hoffman’s stature as “one of our country’s living treasures,” the negative effect his appearance in the magazine might have on motion picture executives and the fact that Los Angeles Magazine is published in the motion picture industry’s hometown.
In the only apparent victory for the defense, Tevrizian said he found insufficient evidence to hold ABC liable for damages. ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co.
One issue left unclear by the ruling is who will pay the damage award, assuming it is upheld on appeal.
Testimony during the trial revealed that Los Angeles Magazine has lost millions of dollars over the past seven years and that ABC has been infusing the publication with cash to keep it afloat.
Hoffman’s lawyer said Friday he was confident that ABC or Disney would make good on any damage claim.
The judge also indicated that he will order the magazine to pay the actor’s legal bills.
