Dustin Hoffman v. Capital Cities/abc, Incorporated, and L.A. Magazine, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the defendant magazine publisher did not receive consideration for publishing the speech in question
• noting that the defendant magazine publisher “did not use [Dustin] Hoffman’s image in a traditional advertisement printed merely for the purpose of selling a particular product”
• “evidence must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that [the publisher] knew (or purposefully avoided knowing) that the photograph would mislead its readers”
• “A printed article meant to draw attention to the for-profit magazine in which it appears, however, does not fall outside of the protection of the First Amendment because it may help to sell copies.”
• “Any commercial aspects are inextricably entwined with expressive elements, and so they cannot be separated out from the fully protected whole.”
• speech at issue not “commercial speech,” and therefore entitled to full First Amendment protection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).