Ericson v. Playgirl
California Court of Appeal
140 Cal. Rptr. 921 (1977)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
In order to boost his acting career, John Ericson (plaintiff) agreed to allow Playgirl, Inc. (Playgirl) (plaintiff) to use photographs of Ericson as the centerfold of Playgirl’s January 1974 issue. In April 1974, Ericson agreed to allow Playgirl to rerun the photographs in the annual Best of Playgirl publication, which had half the circulation of Playgirl magazine, on the condition that a photograph of Ericson take up one-quarter of the magazine’s cover. Playgirl included Ericson’s pictures in the Best of Playgirl publication, but Ericson’s picture did not appear on the cover due to an editorial mistake. Ericson sued Playgirl for damages based on the loss of publicity he would have received by having his photograph appear on the cover of the magazine. At trial, witnesses testified that the front cover of a magazine was not for sale and that it was impossible to quote an exact price for space on a front cover. Richard Cook, an advertising manager for TV Guide, testified that the value to an entertainer of appearing on the cover of a national magazine was “probably close to $50,000.” Cook also testified that the value for appearing on only one-quarter of a magazine cover would therefore only be $12,500. The trial court awarded Ericson damages of $12,500. Playgirl appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fleming, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.