§Why CasetextPricing

Karen Gravano, Appellant,v.Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., Respondents.

Brief

46 Cited authorities

  1. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises

    471 U.S. 539 (1985)   Cited 1,212 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if a new work "supersede the use of the original," it is probably not a fair use

  2. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

    564 U.S. 786 (2011)   Cited 487 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even if violent video games cause aggression, a state could not prohibit their sale to children

  3. Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.

    486 U.S. 750 (1988)   Cited 1,023 times
    Holding that a statute "placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official or agency" is unconstitutional

  4. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council

    485 U.S. 568 (1988)   Cited 723 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union’s distribution of handbills at the entrances of a shopping mall was not threatening, coercing, or restraining within meaning of section 8(b) because there had been "no violence, picketing, or patrolling," and "no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive effect on customers of the mall"

  5. Time, Inc. v. Hill

    385 U.S. 374 (1967)   Cited 712 times
    Holding constitutional a state law imposing civil liability for malicious false statements that invade a private individual's right of privacy

  6. Freihofer v. Hearst Corp.

    65 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 608 times
    Holding that violation of confidentiality provisions of New York's Domestic Relations Law by publication of information contained in court papers in a divorce action was not capable of sustaining an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim

  7. Hilton v. Hallmark Cards

    580 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 234 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pendent jurisdiction is unavailable over a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b) in an appeal from a denial of a motion to strike under an anti-SLAPP statute

  8. Arrington v. N Y Times Co.

    55 N.Y.2d 433 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 324 times
    Finding the newsworthiness exception met when defendant published an article on the expanding black middle class featuring the plaintiff's image even though plaintiff had no prior knowledge that his photograph had been taken

  9. ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc.

    332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003)   Cited 174 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding prints of Tiger Woods reflecting his likeness constituted protected, creative expression in the face of a right of publicity challenge

  10. Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents

    360 U.S. 684 (1959)   Cited 197 times
    Holding advocacy of immoral activities was protected speech

  11. Section 540.08 - Unauthorized publication of name or likeness

    Fla. Stat. § 540.08   Cited 135 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (1) No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use given by: (a) Such person; or (b) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such person to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness; or (c) If such person is deceased, any person, firm or corporation

  12. Section 3344.1 - Using deceased person's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1   Cited 58 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a "deceased personality" could, " before [his or her] death," transfer the statutory right of publicity "by contract or by means of trust or testamentary documents," but that "after the death of the deceased personality," the statutory publicity right "vest[ed]" directly in specified statutory beneficiaries