A recent Federal District Court decision awarded the actor, Dustin Hoffman, 1.5 million dollars in actual damages, and scheduled a hearing on his claim for punitive damages, against Los Angeles Magazine and its owner, Fairchild Publications, which in turn is owned by Capital Cities ABC, for invading his publicity rights.

The magazine took a photo still from the movie "Tootsie" in which Hoffman was wearing woman's clothing, and computer altered it to place his head on a body wearing designer clothes. It then ran the photo in an apparent attempt at satire. The Court found otherwise, holding that "the photographs were manipulated and cannibalized to such an extent that the celebrities were commercially exploited and robbed of their dignity, professionalism and talent." Other celebrities, who did not sue, were also depicted.

The defendant argued that this was editorial usage, and a satire; thus protected by the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech.

Presumably, if the photographer of the photograph retained copyright to the image and also sued, the liability result would have been the same. Damages would be a different story, however, since privacy or publicity violations allow for much broader theories for damages, including defamation claims.

On the other hand, if the photographer had licensed use of the image to the magazine with knowledge of the intended use, it is certainly possible that the photographer could also have been a party in the action - on the wrong end!

This is just the latest example of what could go wrong if you are not on top of your business practices.