Lindsay Lohan v. Armando Christian Perez et al.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of an individual's name in a work of art, such as a song, is protected by the First Amendment and does not violate New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, especially when the use is an isolated, incidental reference rather than for direct advertising or trade purposes.
Facts:
- Lindsay Lohan is a professional actor.
- Defendants Armando Christian Perez (Pitbull), Shaffer Chimere Smith, Jr. (Ne-Yo), and Nick Van de Wall (Afrojack) were the creators, writers, and artists of the song 'Give Me Everything'.
- The song was released on March 18, 2011, and was widely distributed on radio, the internet, and television.
- The song contains the lyric: 'So, I’m tiptoein’, to keep flowin’/ I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan.'
- On June 21, 2011, the song was included on Perez’s album, entitled 'Planet Pit'.
- Lohan did not give her consent or authorization for her name to be used in the song.
Procedural Posture:
- Lindsay Lohan commenced this action against Armando Christian Perez and others in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County.
- Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which the court rejected without prejudice for failure to comply with local court rules.
- Plaintiff did not re-file the motion to remand.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
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 unauthorized use of a celebrity's name in a single lyric of a popular song constitute a use 'for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade' in violation of New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51?
Opinions:
Majority - Hurley, Senior District Judge
No, the use of a celebrity's name in a single lyric does not violate New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. The court provided three main reasons for this conclusion. First, the song is a work of art, and as a form of artistic expression, it is protected by the First Amendment, placing it outside the scope of New York's privacy statute. Second, the use of Lohan's name was not for 'advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade' within the meaning of the statute; the mere fact that a work is sold for profit does not transform it into a commercial advertisement. Third, even if the song were considered commercial, the use of Lohan's name qualifies for the 'incidental use' exception, as it was an isolated, fleeting reference in one of 104 lines and was not used in the title or refrain.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant protection the First Amendment affords to artistic and expressive works against right of privacy and publicity claims under New York law. It clarifies that a mere reference to a public figure within a creative work does not constitute a commercial use, even if the work itself is sold for profit. The ruling solidifies the 'incidental use' doctrine, providing a strong defense for artists who make isolated references to real people, thereby preventing celebrities from controlling every mention of their name in popular culture. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for public figures to succeed on such claims unless their name or likeness is used in a manner that explicitly advertises a product or is central to the work itself.
Unlock the full brief for Lindsay Lohan v. Armando Christian Perez et al.