merely uses players’ names and playing records which are already in the public domain, there is no possibility of unjust enrichment. In regard to the rights of the public which countervail the interests involved in the right of publicity, the public has an “interest in the dissemination of news and information consistent with the democratic processes under the constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and of the press.” Gionfriddo 94 Cal.App.4th at 406, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 307. Significant to the matter under consideration, the court in Gionfriddo held that “[t]he recitation and discussion of factual data concerning the athletic performance of these plaintiffs [who were retired professional baseball players] command a substantial public interest.” Id.See also Cardtoons, 95 F.3d at 973 (<HOLDING>). This court has found, in the circumstances of
holding that the public has an interest in having access to factual data from baseball games recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding under the rogers test that since browns likeness is artistically relevant to the madden nfl  games and there are no alleged facts to support the claim that ea explicitly misled consumers as to browns involvement with the games the public interest in free expression outweighs the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion recognizing the public interest exception holding that in analyzing whether a limited public forum has been created we consider the nature of the property or means of communication the governments purpose in permitting whatever limited access it has allowed and the conditions of access eg whether permission is required