Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Ericson v. Playgirl
California Court of Appeal
140 Cal. Rptr. 921 (1977)
In Ericson versus Playgirl, we'll see whether an actor was entitled to damages for loss of publicity after a magazine didn't put him on the cover of one of its issues.
Actor John Ericson agreed to allow Playgirl magazine to publish naked photographs of Ericson as the magazine's January nineteen seventy four centerfold.
Ericson agreed that Playgirl wouldn't pay Ericson because Ericson wanted his photos in Playgirl to boost his acting career. After the magazine was published, Ericson didn't benefit from any immediate career boost. In April of nineteen seventy four, Playgirl wanted to use Ericson's photographs again in the magazine's annual best of Playgirl edition.
The best of Playgirl had half of the circulation as Playgirl, and it also didn't run advertising.
Ericson agreed to have his photos published in the best of Playgirl on two conditions.
First, Playgirl had to crop Ericson's photographs so that the images were more modest.
Second, Ericson's photograph had to occupy one fourth of the front cover.
Playgirl did crop Ericson's photos and include his photos in the magazine.
But because of an editorial mix up, Ericson's picture didn't appear on the cover of best of Playgirl.
Ericson sued Playgirl for damages for the loss of publicity that he would have received had Playgirl put Ericson's photograph on the cover of best of Playgirl.
At trial, Playgirl's witnesses testified that the front cover of a magazine isn't for sale, and that a magazine publisher reserves its exclusive control over the cover. This meant that it wasn't possible to quote a direct price for space on a magazine's front cover. Other witnesses testified that an actor could gain valuable publicity if an actor's picture appeared on the front cover of a national magazine.
However, it is difficult to quantify the price of this type of publicity.
Witness Richard Cook, the advertising manager for TV Guide, testified that the value of appearing on the cover of a magazine was close to fifty thousand dollars.
Cook based his opinion on the fact that magazines are displayed on news stands, so even people who may not buy the magazine will still see the cover. The circulation of a magazine also affects the value of being on that magazine's cover.
Because Playgirl only agreed to put Ericson on a quarter of the cover, Cook argued that Ericson's damages should be one fourth of fifty thousand dollars.
As a result, the trial court awarded Ericson twelve thousand five hundred dollars in damages for the loss of publicity.
Playgirl appealed to the California Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/ericson-v-playgirl
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/ericson-v-playgirl
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Ericson v. Playgirl
California Court of Appeal
140 Cal. Rptr. 921 (1977)
In Ericson versus Playgirl, we'll see whether an actor was entitled to damages for loss of publicity after a magazine didn't put him on the cover of one of its issues.
Actor John Ericson agreed to allow Playgirl magazine to publish naked photographs of Ericson as the magazine's January nineteen seventy four centerfold.
Ericson agreed that Playgirl wouldn't pay Ericson because Ericson wanted his photos in Playgirl to boost his acting career. After the magazine was published, Ericson didn't benefit from any immediate career boost. In April of nineteen seventy four, Playgirl wanted to use Ericson's photographs again in the magazine's annual best of Playgirl edition.
The best of Playgirl had half of the circulation as Playgirl, and it also didn't run advertising.
Ericson agreed to have his photos published in the best of Playgirl on two conditions.
First, Playgirl had to crop Ericson's photographs so that the images were more modest.
Second, Ericson's photograph had to occupy one fourth of the front cover.
Playgirl did crop Ericson's photos and include his photos in the magazine.
But because of an editorial mix up, Ericson's picture didn't appear on the cover of best of Playgirl.
Ericson sued Playgirl for damages for the loss of publicity that he would have received had Playgirl put Ericson's photograph on the cover of best of Playgirl.
At trial, Playgirl's witnesses testified that the front cover of a magazine isn't for sale, and that a magazine publisher reserves its exclusive control over the cover. This meant that it wasn't possible to quote a direct price for space on a magazine's front cover. Other witnesses testified that an actor could gain valuable publicity if an actor's picture appeared on the front cover of a national magazine.
However, it is difficult to quantify the price of this type of publicity.
Witness Richard Cook, the advertising manager for TV Guide, testified that the value of appearing on the cover of a magazine was close to fifty thousand dollars.
Cook based his opinion on the fact that magazines are displayed on news stands, so even people who may not buy the magazine will still see the cover. The circulation of a magazine also affects the value of being on that magazine's cover.
Because Playgirl only agreed to put Ericson on a quarter of the cover, Cook argued that Ericson's damages should be one fourth of fifty thousand dollars.
As a result, the trial court awarded Ericson twelve thousand five hundred dollars in damages for the loss of publicity.
Playgirl appealed to the California Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/ericson-v-playgirl
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/ericson-v-playgirl
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
![Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U86aLpipVaM/mqdefault.jpg "Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I]
European Court of Justice
Case C-362/14 (2015)
European Union regulations strictly control the transfer of personal data from data controlling entities in Europe to countries outside the EU referred to as third countries.
The regulations require third countries to ensure an adequate level of data protection.
In data protection commissioner versus Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximilian Schrems, the European Court of Justice considered whether the United States met this standard. In two thousand, the US and the EU negotiated an agreement called the Safe Harbor Principles to authorize private companies to transfer personal customer data from Europe to the states.
The European Commission issued a decision called an adequacy decision certifying that Safe Harbor guaranteed an adequate level of data protection for European citizens.
However, safe harbor allowed the American government unlimited access to personal data for national security and other purposes.
In two thousand thirteen, former government contractor Edward Snowden leaked information revealing that American security agencies engaged in extensive warrantless data collection and had direct access to the data held by major companies like Google and Facebook.
Austrian citizen, Maximilian Schrems, had a Facebook account. European Facebook users had to contract with Facebook Ireland, a Facebook subsidiary.
Facebook Ireland sent users personal data to Facebook in the US. Following the Snowden league, Shremes filed a complaint with Irelands data protection commissioner, that countrys data supervisory authority. Schrems asked the authority to prohibit Facebook Ireland from transferring his data to the US because US law didnt adequately protect personal data.
The authority rejected Schrems complaint because of safe harbor.
Schrems appealed to Irelands high court, which requested an opinion on the safe harbor decisions validity from the European Court of Justice.
The European Court invalidated the decision and referred the case back to the authority.
Thereafter, the US and EU negotiated a new agreement called Privacy Shield. The European Commission issued an adequacy decision approving Privacy Shield. Privacy Shield was similar to Safe Harbor, but created an ombudsperson to investigate data privacy complaints from European citizens.
Again, however, Privacy Shield allowed the federal government unlimited access to personal data for national security reasons.
Schrems refiled his complaint. The authority referred the case to Irelands high court, which again referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries")
