Judge Doubles L.A. Magazine’s Damages in Dustin Hoffman Suit

A judge Thursday doubled to $3 million the damages that Los Angeles Magazine must pay Dustin Hoffman for publishing an unauthorized computer-altered photo of him in a fashion spread.

The Academy Award-winning actor, who sued the magazine for misappropriating his image, won $1.5 million in compensatory damages last week in a nonjury federal court trial.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian Jr. tacked on another $1.5 million in damages to punish the magazine and to deter any repetition of what he called an abuse of computer technology.

Although Hoffman’s lawyer had asked for at least twice that amount, the actor said afterward that he was pleased with the award.

Hoffman said he hasn’t given any thought to how he might use the $3 million, though he noted that he’s not likely to see the money for some time.

Los Angeles Magazine’s parent, ABC, says it will appeal the verdict to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a March 1997 article titled “Grand Illusions,” the magazine used a computer to dress famous movie stars, some long dead, in the latest spring fashions.

A shot of Hoffman, taken from his appearance in drag in the movie “Tootsie,” was superimposed on 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 contended that he was entitled to protect his name from commercial exploitation. Tevrizian ruled in favor of Hoffman.

He granted the actor $1.5 million compensation and set a hearing to decide how much to award in punitive damages.

Hoffman’s lawyer, Charles N. Shephard, argued Thursday that the magazine should be compelled to pay $3 million to $4.5 million as punishment.

The actor testified in the trial that he has a policy of not endorsing commercial products. Movie stars who appear in commercials are often thought to be over the hill, the lawyer said.

Shephard said the magazine’s editors trampled on Hoffman’s rights by making it seem that he was promoting Ralph Lauren and Richard Tyler products.

Moreover, he said they aggravated their misconduct by making no effort to contact Hoffman, by failing to contact their own lawyer when a staffer expressed concerns, and by lying to a commercial photo archive about how they intended to use Hoffman’s picture.

Steven Perry, attorney for Los Angeles Magazine, said there was little evidence presented during the trial that the editors intended to violate Hoffman’s rights.

He also argued that 1st Amendment concerns weigh against heavy punitive damages. And he said the $1.5-million compensatory damage award already represents a crippling blow to the magazine.

Testimony at the trial revealed that Los Angeles Magazine has been losing money year after year. It lost more than $5 million in 1996, more than $4 million in 1997 and more than $3 million last year.

ABC, which is now part of Walt Disney Co., has covered those losses.

Although profit-and-loss statements submitted by Los Angeles Magazine showed the publication in the red, Hoffman’s lawyer said he had been assured by Perry that ABC would pay any damage award.

This is not the end of the magazine’s legal problems because of the fashion spread.

A trial is scheduled to begin in June in a similar lawsuit filed by Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc., holder of the late rock ‘n’ roll star’s copyrights. Presley’s photo, taken from the movie “Jailhouse Rock,” was superimposed on that of a model dressed in a Polo Ralph Lauren tennis outfit.

The Presley suit cites the same legal arguments advanced by Hoffman.