Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:103
`
`
`
`
`KATHRYN J. FRITZ (CSB No. 148200)
`kfritz@fenwick.com
`TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
`tnewby@fenwick.com
`MARY M. GRIFFIN (CSB No. 324073)
`mgriffin@fenwick.com
`NICHOLAS A. SANTOS (CSB No. 335767)
`nsantos@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile: 415.281.1350
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NEOCORTEXT, INC.
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`KYLAND YOUNG, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NEOCORTEXT, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`DEFENDANT NEOCORTEXT,
`INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM PURSUANT
`TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE
`§ 425.16
`
`July 14, 2023
`Date:
`1:30 p.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom 9B
`Dept:
`Hon. Wesley L. Hsu
`Judge:
`Trial Date: None
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:104
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 14, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
`thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 9B of the above-entitled Court,
`located at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendant NeoCortext, Inc.,
`will, and hereby does, move this Court to strike Plaintiff Kyland Young’s right of
`publicity claim pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16, and award NeoCortext its
`fees and costs under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c) on the grounds that:
`(1) Plaintiff’s claim arises from protected activity; and
`(2) Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his right of
`publicity claim.
`Defendant’s Motion is made on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and papers that are of record in this case, and
`on such other and further evidence as may be offered at the hearing.
`This Notice of Motion is made following the conference of counsel for
`Defendants and Plaintiff under L.R. 7-3, which took place on May 24, 2023, where
`the parties thoroughly discussed the substance and potential resolution of the filed
`motion by videoconference. The parties were unable to reach a resolution, and
`Plaintiff opposes the Motion.
`
`Dated: May 31, 2023
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`By: /s/ Tyler G. Newby
`Tyler G. Newby
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NEOCORTEXT, INC.
`
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:105
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`Page
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND FACTS ALLEGED ................................................... 3
`II.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................... 4
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Plaintiff’s Claim Arises from Protected Activity. ................................. 5
`1.
`The display of images of celebrities and other public
`figures in Reface are statements made in a public forum in
`connection with issues of public interest. ................................... 5
`a.
`Plaintiff’s claim arises from conduct in a public
`forum. ............................................................................... 5
`Plaintiff’s claim concerns an issue of public
`interest. ............................................................................. 6
`Reface involves rights of free speech in connection with a
`public issue or an issue of public interest. .................................. 7
`Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate a Probability of Prevailing on His
`Right of Publicity Claim. ...................................................................... 8
`1.
`The Copyright Act Preempts Plaintiff’s Claim. ......................... 8
`a.
`The subject matter of Plaintiff’s right of publicity
`claim falls within the subject matter of copyright. ........... 9
`Plaintiff asserts rights that are equivalent to rights
`within the general scope of copyright. ........................... 10
`Plaintiff’s Right of Publicity Claim is Also Barred by the
`First Amendment. ..................................................................... 14
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead a Prima Facie Violation of His
`Right of Publicity. ..................................................................... 16
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 17
`
`
`b.
`
`b.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`i
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:106
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`Barrett v. Rosenthal,
`40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006) ............................................................................................ 5
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................... 16
`CBS Broad. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., et al.,
`C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-CV-04073-GAF-JEMx .................................................... 9
`City of Colton v. Singletary,
`206 Cal. App. 4th 751 (2012) ............................................................................... 4
`CoreCivic, Inc. v. Candide Grp., LLC,
`46 F.4th 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................... 1
`Creative Photographers, Inc. v. Brook Collection, LLC,
`No. 2:20-cv-09261-RGK-E, 2021 WL 3568243 (C.D. Cal July 7, 2021) ......... 14
`Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch,
`265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 12, 13
`Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc.,
`742 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 5
`Hilton v. Hallmark Cards,
`599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 6
`Hupp v. Freedom Commc’ns, Inc.,
`221 Cal. App. 4th 398 (2013) ............................................................................... 5
`Jackson v. Mayweather,
`10 Cal. App. 5th 1240 (2017) ............................................................................... 5
`Kirby v. Sega of Am., Inc.,
`144 Cal. App. 4th 47 (2006) ......................................................................... 14, 15
`Laws v. Sony Music Ent., Inc.,
`448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 10, 11
`Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... passim
`Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.,
`94 F. Supp. 3d 1128 (C.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................. 6
`Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick,
`264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 4
`Mindys Cosms., Inc. v. Dakar,
`611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 4
`
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:107
`
`
`Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress,
`890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 4, 8
`Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Terri Welles, Inc.,
`78 F.Supp.2d 1066 (S.D. Cal. 1999) .................................................................. 14
`Seeling v. Infinity Broad. Corp.,
`97 Cal. App. 4th 798 (2002) ................................................................................. 7
`Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC,
`181 Cal. App. 4th 664 (2010) ............................................................................... 6
`Tamkin v. CBS Broad., Inc.,
`193 Cal. App. 4th 133 (2011) ............................................................................... 7
`Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc.,
`284 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 9
`Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino,
`35 Cal. 4th 180 (2005) .......................................................................................... 4
`White v. City of Sparks,
`500 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 7, 15
`Winter v. DC Comics,
`30 Cal. 4th 881 (2003) ............................................................................ 14, 15, 16
`STATUTES AND RULES
`17 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 1, 9
`17 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 8
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ................................................................................................ 1, 8, 10
`17 U.S.C. § 301 ...................................................................................................... 2, 8
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 .................................................................................... 3, 11, 16
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 .......................................................................... passim
`Copyright Act ................................................................................................... passim
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ............................................................ 4, 9
`Federal Rules of Evidence 201(b) ....................................................................... 9, 10
`
`
`
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 6 of 23 Page ID #:108
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff’s lawsuit is a strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP”)
`aimed not at protecting his ability to sell his image and likeness, but at gagging a
`novel application that enables users to engage in creative activities that are protected
`by the First Amendment. Defendant NeoCortext’s Reface app allows end users to
`create new content by replacing a face in a photo or short video clip with a different
`face, such as their own. The source photos and video clips may involve clips or stills
`from movies or, as in the case of Plaintiff, television shows. Using artificial
`intelligence, Reface lets users transform these images to create humorous and
`sometimes absurd new works for personal use. Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 2, 4, 19,
`21. This is exactly the type of creative activity that the First Amendment protects
`and that the right of publicity does not.
`California’s anti-SLAPP statute is a special procedural vehicle to dispose of
`meritless lawsuits like this one that burden a defendant’s First Amendment rights.
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16; CoreCivic, Inc. v. Candide Grp., LLC, 46 F.4th 1136,
`1143 (9th Cir. 2022). Plaintiff’s sole claim, brought under California’s statutory right
`of publicity, arises from “protected activity” as defined under the anti-SLAPP statute.
`Defendant’s offering of an entertainment application that allows users to modify
`photos or video clips of public figures and create new content is conduct in a public
`forum both on matters of public interest and in furtherance of Defendant’s and its
`users’ free speech rights. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.16(e)(3), (e)(4). Additionally,
`Plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on his claim as a matter of law.
`Plaintiff’s claim fails for at least three reasons, as laid out in NeoCortext’s
`concurrently filed motion to dismiss.
`First, Section 301 of the Copyright Act preempts Plaintiff’s claim. Section
`301 bars any state-law claim that (1) “come[s] within the subject matter of copyright
`as specified by [17 U.S.C. § 102]” and (2) asserts rights “equivalent to any of the
`exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by [17 U.S.C. §
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`1
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`I.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 7 of 23 Page ID #:109
`
`
`106].” 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). Plaintiff’s claim is plainly within the subject matter of
`copyright because Plaintiff alleges that his likeness has been captured in copyrighted
`photos and video stills. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 22. And Plaintiff’s right of publicity claim is
`equivalent to the rights “within the general scope of copyright” because the claim
`seeks to control the creation of derivative works from copyrighted photographs and
`video clips in which his image appears—a right granted exclusively to copyright
`holders. At bottom, Plaintiff brings a copyright infringement claim that he likely has
`no legal right to bring under the guise of a right of publicity claim.
`Second, Plaintiff’s right of publicity claim is barred by the First Amendment
`under California’s transformative use test, which balances a celebrity’s right of
`publicity with First Amendment rights. Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that the
`Reface app provides users with the ability to create new images or videos that
`embody the user’s creativity and aesthetic expression. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 19, 21. The
`Complaint also alleges that the new work includes distinctive features that are absent
`from the original photographs. Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 21. Because these add expressive content
`to the original photograph of Plaintiff, they are sufficiently transformative to be
`entitled to First Amendment protection.
`Third, Plaintiff fails to plead a prima facie violation of his statutory right of
`publicity. California’s statutory right of publicity claim requires Plaintiff to allege
`that Defendant “knowingly use[d] [his] name, voice, signature, photograph, or
`likeness” for advertising purposes. The Complaint does not allege a knowing use of
`any such attribute. Nor does the Complaint sufficiently allege that NeoCortext’s
`conduct qualifies as advertising.
`Accordingly, NeoCortext respectfully requests, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc.
`Code § 425.16, that the Court strike Plaintiff’s right of publicity claim and order
`Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s attorneys’ fees it incurred in bringing this motion.
`
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 8 of 23 Page ID #:110
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND FACTS ALLEGED
`Defendant is the developer of the Reface app, which users may download from
`the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store. Compl. ¶ 6. Defendant offers both
`a free version of Reface as wells as a paid version. Id. ¶ 14. Both versions allow
`users to access a catalogue of images and short video GIFs of various “actors,
`musicians, athletes, celebrities, and/or other well-known individuals, from third party
`sources, including “mybestgif.com, https://tenor.com/, Google Video, [or] Bing
`Video.” Id. ¶ 15. Reface users can create new visual works and digital content by
`uploading pictures and images from their smartphone and swapping faces in
`uploaded photos and GIFs in the catalogue. Id. ¶ 2. Users can share the images with
`others for their reactions to “freak out friends.” Id. ¶ 21. The newly created images
`have both creative and aesthetic value. Id. ¶¶ 4, 21. Aside from the expressive value
`and being able to “‘Become Anyone You Wished to Be’,” id. ¶ 3, the new images
`users create are also distinctive from the original photos. When Reface users create
`an image using the free version, the watermark “made with reface app” appears on
`the new image with the Reface logo. Id. ¶ 2.
`On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff Kyland Young, a “cast member of several CBS
`shows” sued NeoCortext for violation of his statutory right of publicity under Cal.
`Civ. Code § 3344. Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff alleges that the watermarks that appear on the
`images created with the free version, which he describes as “teasers” are commercial
`advertising which have the purpose of inducing users to sign up for the paid version
`to remove the watermarks. Id. at 1, ¶ 2. Plaintiff does not, and cannot, allege that
`the free version is a limited-time promotion; users may continue using the free
`version if they do not want the added features of the paid PRO version. Plaintiff also
`alleges that the watermarked face-swapped photos and GIFs “serve as free
`advertising to attract new downloads of the Reface app.” Id. at ¶ 21.
`
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 9 of 23 Page ID #:111
`
`
`The thrust of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that Defendant’s social entertainment app
`allows users to use photos and videos of celebrities and other public figures to create
`new, creative works.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`In 1992, California enacted its anti-SLAPP statute to deter lawsuits that would
`“chill the valid exercise of the constitutional right [] of freedom of speech.” Varian
`Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal. 4th 180, 192 (2005). The anti-SLAPP statute
`allows defendants to file a “special motion to strike” claims “aimed at chilling
`expression through costly, time-consuming litigation” in their infancy. Cal. Civ.
`Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1); Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 839-840
`(9th Cir. 2001).
`“A court considering a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute must
`engage in a two-part inquiry.” Mindys Cosms., Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590, 595 (9th
`Cir. 2010). First, the Court must determine whether the defendant has made “a prima
`facie showing that the plaintiff’s suit ‘arises from an act in furtherance of the
`defendant’s rights of petition or free speech.’” Id. (quoting Vess v. Ciba–Geigy Corp.
`USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1110 (9th Cir. 2003)). Courts often frame the resulting legal
`inquiry as whether the claim would burden “protected activity.” City of Colton v.
`Singletary, 206 Cal. App. 4th 751, 766 (2012). If the defendant makes the required
`showing, the plaintiff must then “demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the
`challenged claims.” Mindys Cosms., 611 F.3d at 595 (quoting Vess, 317 F.3d at 1110).
`Where the defendant brings an anti-SLAPP motion on the pleadings, as this motion
`does, the analysis of the second part is identical to the Rule 12(b)(6) standard of
`review. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 890 F.3d
`828, 832 (9th Cir. 2018).
`
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 10 of 23 Page ID #:112
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`Plaintiff’s Claim Arises from Protected Activity.
`A.
`Plaintiff’s single claim is subject to an anti-SLAPP motion because the use of
`Plaintiff’s image in Reface is “in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free
`speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public
`issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e). The statute enumerates four categories of
`protected activity: (i) written or oral statements in a legislative, judicial, or executive
`proceeding; (ii) written oral statements in connection with an issue under
`consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body; (iii) any written
`or oral statements made in a public forum in connection with an issue of public
`interest; and (iv) other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the right of petition
`or free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. Cal.
`Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e). Because the legislature declared that the statute “shall
`be construed broadly” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(a)), courts “must generally
`presume the validity of the claimed constitutional right in the first step of the anti-
`SLAPP analysis.” Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network,
`Inc., 742 F.3d 414, 422 (9th Cir. 2014).
`The display of images of celebrities and other public figures
`1.
`in Reface are statements made in a public forum in
`connection with issues of public interest.
`Plaintiff’s claim arises from conduct in a public forum.
`a.
`Websites and entertainment applications like Reface are “public forums for
`purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.” Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33, 41 n.4
`(2006); see also Hupp v. Freedom Commc’ns, Inc., 221 Cal. App. 4th 398, 404 (2013)
`(same); Jackson v. Mayweather, 10 Cal. App. 5th 1240, 1252 (2017), as modified
`(Apr. 19, 2017) (finding that postings on social media apps Facebook and Instagram
`were made in a public forum). Even websites or apps where the defendant publishes
`photographs and “controls the content of the [] website with no ability for members
`of the public to express their viewpoint” still qualify as a public forum because they
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`5
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 11 of 23 Page ID #:113
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`are part of the internet at-large. Maloney v. T3Media, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 1128, 1134
`(C.D. Cal. 2015), aff’d, 853 F.3d 1004, 1009 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (analyzing
`California’s anti-SLAPP statute and explaining that “claims [that] stem from the
`publication and distribution of expressive photographs over the Internet” fall under
`both Cal. Civ. Proc. Code sections 425.16(e)(3) and (e)(4)).
`Because Reface allows users to select, modify, and distribute photos and GIFs,
`it is a “public forum.”
`Plaintiff’s claim concerns an issue of public interest.
`b.
`Plaintiff’s claim arises out of the Reface users’ ability to modify images of
`celebrities and public figures, including for entertainment and parody purposes,
`which are issues of public interest. While California’s anti-SLAPP statute does not
`define “issue of public interest,” courts have given way to the statute’s explicit
`command that it “shall be construed broadly” and have found that “an issue of public
`interest” means an issue: “(1) [] ‘concerning a person or entity in the public eye’; (2)
`‘conduct that could directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct
`participants’; or (3) ‘a topic of widespread, public interest.’” Hilton v. Hallmark
`Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty.,
`& Mun. Emps., 105 Cal. App. 4th 913, 130 (2003) (holding that the individuals were
`not matters of public interest because they had “received no public attention or media
`coverage”)).
`Here, the Complaint alleges that the Reface app contains the images of
`“thousands of [] actors, musicians, athletes, celebrities, and other well-known
`individuals.” Compl. ¶¶ 1,13. The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff himself is
`in the public eye. See id. ¶ 5 (“Plaintiff . . . is a cast member of several CBS shows.
`He was a finalist in season 23 of Big Brother and Starred in the Challenge: USA.”).
`Thus, by Plaintiff’s own admission, he is in the public eye and therefore of “public
`interest.” See Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC, 181 Cal. App. 4th 664, 677-78 (2010)
`(stating that “public interest which attaches to people who, by their accomplishments,
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`6
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 12 of 23 Page ID #:114
`
`
`mode of living, professional standing or calling,” call the public’s attention to their
`activities); Seeling v. Infinity Broad. Corp., 97 Cal. App. 4th 798, 808 (2002) (“By
`having chosen to participate as a contestant in [a reality tv show], plaintiff voluntarily
`subjected herself to [commentary] by the public.”). Indeed, users could only “wish
`to be” (Compl. ¶ 3) someone well-known and in the public eye. Accordingly,
`Plaintiff’s claim concerns an issue of public interest.
`Reface involves rights of free speech in connection with a
`2.
`public issue or an issue of public interest.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`Giving users a platform to create digital content and new visual works, as
`Reface does, furthers free speech. “An act is in furtherance of the right of free speech
`if the act helps to advance that right or assists in the exercise of that right.” Tamkin
`v. CBS Broad., Inc., 193 Cal. App. 4th 133, 143 (2011) (explaining that “acts [that]
`helped to advance or assist in the create[ing], casting, and broadcasting of an episode
`of a popular television show” qualified for protection under the anti-SLAPP statute).
`The Ninth Circuit has explained that visual works “always communicate some idea
`or concept to those who view [them], and as such are entitled to full First Amendment
`protection.” White v. City of Sparks, 500 F.3d 953, 955-56 (9th Cir. 2007).
`Reface allows users to create new expressive works from a catalogue of photos
`and GIFs by using “an artificial intelligence algorithm to allow users to swap faces
`with actors, musicians, athletes, celebrities, and/or other well-known individuals” to
`“generate a new watermarked image or video.” Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 19. The Complaint
`also recognizes that the newly generated images embody both the user’s creativity
`and aesthetic expression. Id. ¶¶ 4, 21. Like other visual content, the newly generated
`photos and videos are entitled to First Amendment protection, and Defendant’s
`operation of the application that enables the creation of this new content furthers
`users’ right to free speech.
`In sum, Plaintiff’s claims arise out of Defendant’s First Amendment protected
`activity.
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`7
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 13 of 23 Page ID #:115
`
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate a Probability of Prevailing on His
`Right of Publicity Claim.
`
`Because Plaintiff’s claim arises out of protected activities, the burden shifts to
`him to show a probability of prevailing on his claim. See Planned Parenthood, 890
`F.3d at 832-33 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1)) (the second step of anti-
`SLAPP requires plaintiffs to show that the complaint is legally sufficient). Plaintiff
`cannot meet this burden for three independent reasons: (1) Plaintiff’s claim is
`preempted by the Copyright Act; (2) the First Amendment bars Plaintiff’s claim; and
`(3) Plaintiff fails to plead to a prima facie violation of his right of publicity.
`The Copyright Act Preempts Plaintiff’s Claim.
`1.
`“The Copyright Act affords copyright owners the ‘exclusive rights’ to display,
`perform, reproduce, or distribute copies of a copyrighted work, to authorize others to
`do those things, and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.”
`Maloney v. T3Media, Inc., 853 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 17 U.S. C. §
`106). Section 301 of the Copyright Act preempts state-law claims that “come within
`the subject matter of copyright” and assert rights that are “equivalent” to the
`exclusive rights provided to copyright owners under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S. C.
`§ 301(a).
`The Ninth Circuit applies a two-part test to determine whether the Copyright
`Act preempts a state-law claim. Maloney, 853 F.3d at 1010. First, the Court must
`determine whether the subject matter of the state-law claim falls within the subject
`matter of copyright as described in 17 U.S.C. §§102-103. Id. If the first requirement
`is met, the Court then considers “whether the rights asserted under state law are
`equivalent to the rights contained in 17 U.S.C. § 106, which articulates the exclusive
`rights of copyright holders.” Id.
`
`NEOCORTEXT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:23-cv-02496-WLH(PVCx)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02496-WLH-PVC Document 32 Filed 05/31/23 Page 14 of 23 Page ID #:116
`
`
`a.
`
`The subject matter of Plaintiff’s right of publicity
`claim falls within the subject matter of copyright.
`
`Plaintiff’s claim is within the subject matter of copyright. The Copyright Act
`defines the “subject matter of copyright” to include “original works of authorship
`fixed in any tangible medium of expression . . . from which they can be perceived,
`reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine
`or device.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). “Works of authorship” include “pictorial or graphic”
`works. Id. § 102(a)(5). In Maloney, under step one, the Ninth Circuit explained that
`state law right of publicity claims are preempted by the Copyright Act “when a
`likeness has been captured in a copyrighted artistic visual work and the work itself is
`being distributed for personal use.” Id. at 1011. But a right of publicity claim is not
`preempted when the claim concerns the use of one’s name or likeness in advertising
`or the sale of merchandise. Id.
`The core of Plaintiff’s right of publicity claim is that Defendant used
`photographs and videos of him from the CBS television program, Big Brother, in the
`free version of its Reface app. See Compl. ¶ 2 (“[t]he free version grants the Free
`User access to the Reface library of movie and show clips and images.”); id. ¶ 22
`(explaining that the pre-set catalogue “contains images and videos often depicting
`individuals’ physical bodies in the role for which they are famous”); id (“[i]n Mr.
`Young’s case, the Reface application allows users to swap their face on his body from
`scenes on CBS’s big brother). The photo stills, video clips, and the Big Brother
`program are clearly within the subject matter of copyright, and Plaintiff has not
`alleged that he is the copyright holder. Indeed, CBS, as the exclusive licensee of the
`Big Brother program, has previously sued another network for allegedly infringing
`copyrights in Big Brother. See, e.g., CBS Broad. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., et al., C.D.
`Cal. Case No. 12-CV-04073-GAF-JEMx, Complaint