Case15-2Penthouse International v. Barnes

United States Court of Appeals 792 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1986)

PriscillaBarneswas a hostess at a club in Hollywood, California, when she was approached by a freelance photographer (Dunas) who sold nude photographs toPenthousemagazine. Dunas was an independent contractor. He askedBarnesto pose nude. She agreed but did not want her actual name used. Dunas agreed to her terms, andBarnessigned a "Release, Authorization and Agreement Form" that gavePenthousethe right to "republish photographic pictures or portraits." Dunas added the termAKA(also known as) on the contract to indicate that the photographs would not be published under her actual name, but under a pseudonym.Penthousedid so in 1976.

Later,Barnesbecame a well-known television broadcaster for a station in Los Angeles. WhenPenthouseinformed her in 1983 that it wished to republish her nude photograph, she threatened to sue, claiming that Dunas had implied agency to write the termAKAand thatPenthousewas thus bound by his actions and representations.Penthouserequested a declaratory judgment from the federal district court allowing it to republish a nude photo of the defendant. The district court found forBarnesand issued an injunction againstPenthouse.Penthouseappealed.

Find the parties, facts, applicable rule, holdings, reasoning and explanation