Santa Monica jury awards nothing to actor
By DAVE DANFORTH Daily Press Staff Writer
An actor claiming he deserved a six-figure paycheck for a copy shop’s unauthorized use of his photo has been rebuffed by a Santa Monica jury.
Danny Nucci’s bid was turned back earlier this month after what one juror described as a “ridiculous” attempt to compare the value of his head shot, along with others on a postcard, to a national television commercial.
Nucci, 35, currently starring in a new cop television series “10-8,” sued CopyMat in Hollywood after the copy shop culled his face, along with numerous others, from its computer files to print up 600 postcards to illustrate its work. The shop, which didn’t know the identities behind the faces it was using, pulled Nucci’s head shot after his publicist had been there to get the shot scanned onto a disc.
399,“It’s unfortunate that someone who’s talented would want to make money on something like this,” said Joel Citron, CopyMat’s lawyer. He said the shop was one of five loosely affiliated copy outlets in Southern California.
“It’s unfortunate that someone who’s talented would want to make money on something like this.” — — JOEL CITRON CopyMat’s lawyer
Nucci didn’t see the CopyMat postcard, mailed to various talent agents in a bid to demonstrate its work, for over a year after its 2001 appearance. But his lawyer, Tom Turner, claimed Nucci sued in order to protect his right to avoid commercial work while his acting career was taking off.
While the jury agreed that CopyMat had violated a 1971 privacy statute signed into law by Gov. Ronald Reagan, it found that Nucci had suffered no loss. After a buyer for the ad agency, Chiat Day, minimized the value of a print headshot on a postcard, the jury decided Nucci didn’t require pay for his work. There was little evidence that anyone in the Santa Monica Superior courtroom knew who Danny Nucci was.
The actor’s most prominent role until now had been as Leonardo DiCaprio’s sidekick in “Titanic.” He now commands $65,000 per episode for the hour-long “10-8,” which began this fall. Described as an “edgy humorous take on the L.A. Sheriff’s rookies and their trainers,” it stars Nucci as a street tough-turned trainee. For the period Sept. 22 to Oct. 5, ratings placed it No. 52, between “Happy Family” and “Life with Bonnie.” It had about half the number of viewers as “Law and Order.”
“He’s not looking for an extra $50,000,” said Turner. “He’s making that for each episode.”
The 1971 privacy law forbids the “knowing” use of a photograph or likeness without permission. But it’s unclear if the language protects a user if it didn’t know whose photograph it was using. The jury decided that it did not, according to Lowell Steiger, a juror in the case who happens to be a plaintiff’s attorney.
6E5,“They were really deluding themselves,” Steiger said of Nucci and his lawyer. “It didn’t make any sense. How do you compare a postcard going to 600 talent agents to a star getting half a million from a Coke commercial?”
Turner tried to persuade the jury in closing arguments to consider what talent is paid for television programming. He cited a dancer who received $500,000 for a role in a Coca-Cola commercial, and $1.9 million for an endorsement ad by a late-night talk show host.
Nucci had been paid $75,000 per episode for guest appearances dating back to 2000, and had also pulled down $105,000 for a film role. Turner used an expert witness to say that for major print advertising, such talent is priced at about 15-25 percent of film rates.
But Citron, arguing for CopyMat, laughed off the comparison, noting that at the time of the postcard episode Nucci’s star “was still rising” and that he’d made $3,000 per episode on one series and had worked on a film for “scale” — $248 daily.
“I would be offended if I were on the jury and asked to award these kinds of damages,” Citron told jurors. “My client didn’t make five cents on this thing.” He termed the use of the photo an “honest mistake” made by a CopyMat employee. The shop apologized and cut Nucci’s head shot out of its promotional postcard after his lawyer complained.
“I bet if (the) William Morris (talent agency) got one of these babies it never made it past the mail room,” Citron argued.
The 1971 law specifies a minimum of $750 be awarded in such cases. However, Steiger said the jury interpreted the language to mean that the amount was mandated if it decided to award damages at all. In this case, after 90 minutes of deliberation, it settled on nothing.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 30, 2003. Read the original PDF.