engage in “judicial line drawing.” Id. at 931 (“ ‘[A]t what point does the right [of publicity] collide with the right of free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment?’ ”). Upon considering whether the First Amendment takes precedence over a claimed right of publicity, courts “balance the magnitude” of restricting the expression at issue “against the asserted governmental interest in protecting” the right of publicity. Cardtoons, 95 F.3d at 972. As such this court must examine the importance of CBC’s right to freedom of expression and the consequences of limiting that right. Id. These consequences must be weighed against the effect of infringing on the Major League baseball players’ claimed right of publicity. Id. See also Gionfriddo, 94 Cal.App.4th at 410, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 307 (<HOLDING>); TCI, 110 S.W.3d at 372 (holding that it is
holding that the public interest in expression must be weighed against the plaintiffs economic and noneconomic interests holding that jury not required to award noneconomic damages merely because it has awarded economic damages holding that the plaintiff did not have standing because it was not able to demonstrate how its economic interests fell within the zone of interests protected by the nhpa recognizing the public interest exception holding the damages award of zero dollars was clearly inadequate in light of the substantial evidence at trial of economic and noneconomic damages resulting from husbands wrongful death