Lexplug logoLexplug

Lane v. MRA HOLDINGS, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida
242 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The use of a person's likeness within an expressive work, such as an entertainment video, or in advertisements for that same work, does not constitute use for "trade, commercial, or advertising purposes" under Florida's right of publicity statute. Under Florida law, a minor has the legal capacity to consent to the uncompensated publication of their likeness.


Facts:

  • In September 1999, Veronica Lane, then 17 years old, was in a car with a female companion in Panama City Beach, Florida.
  • Individuals with a video camera approached Lane and her companion, offering beaded necklaces in exchange for them exposing themselves for the camera.
  • Lane and her companion agreed to the exchange.
  • Before Lane exposed herself, her companion mentioned that she had been photographed in a similar situation two years prior and her picture was published in Maxim magazine.
  • After her companion exposed her breasts, Lane stated she wanted beads and subsequently exposed her breasts to the camera.
  • Lane claims the cameraman represented to her that the video was for his own personal use and would not be shown to anyone else.
  • The footage of Lane was later acquired, edited, and distributed by the Defendants in a video series titled 'Girls Gone Wild' and was also used in television commercials promoting the video.

Procedural Posture:

  • Veronica Lane filed a complaint against MRA Holding, LLC in a Florida state trial court.
  • MRA removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a federal trial court, based on diversity of citizenship.
  • Lane was granted a motion to amend her complaint to add four additional defendants: Ventura Distribution, Woodholly Productions, Mantra Films, and AMX Productions.
  • The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the claims for unauthorized publication, commercial misappropriation, and false light invasion of privacy.
  • Lane filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that as a minor she lacked the legal capacity to consent to the filming.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the use of a seventeen-year-old's likeness within an entertainment video and in advertisements for that video constitute an unauthorized publication for commercial purposes under Fla. Stat. § 540.08, where the minor provided consent but later claimed it was invalid due to her age and limited in scope?


Opinions:

Majority - Conway, District Judge

No. The use of Lane's likeness does not violate Fla. Stat. § 540.08 because it was not used for a prohibited 'trade, commercial, or advertising purpose,' and her consent was valid. First, the court determined that the statute prohibits using a likeness to directly promote an unrelated product or service. Using a person's image as part of an expressive work created for entertainment, such as the 'Girls Gone Wild' video, is not a prohibited commercial purpose, even if the work is sold for a profit. Advertisements using clips from the video to promote the video itself are considered incidental and are also permissible. Second, the court held that Florida law does not establish a 'disability of nonage' for consenting to the uncompensated use of one's likeness; the legislature only specified rules for compensated endorsements by minors, implying by omission that uncompensated consent is not prohibited. Finally, the court found that no reasonable jury could conclude Lane's consent was limited, given the public nature of the event, the fact the cameraman was a stranger, and her companion's comment about being published in a national magazine, which put Lane on notice of the potential for widespread distribution.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the scope of Florida's right of publicity statute by distinguishing between prohibited commercial uses and permissible uses within expressive works. It establishes that for-profit entertainment products are not, by themselves, commercial speech, and using a person's image as part of the content is not an actionable misappropriation. The ruling also sets an important precedent regarding a minor's capacity to consent in Florida, finding they can consent to uncompensated publication, which limits the ability of minors to later disavow consent for appearing in reality-based or user-generated media.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lane v. MRA HOLDINGS, LLC (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"