Parks v. LaFace Records
329 F.3d 437 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a celebrity's name is used as the title of an artistic work, the First Amendment does not bar claims for false advertising or violation of the right of publicity if the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work, or if it has some relevance but explicitly misleads as to the source or content.
Facts:
- Rosa Parks, a renowned civil rights figure, became famous in 1955 for refusing to give up her bus seat in Montgomery, Alabama.
- Over the years, Parks used her celebrity status to promote books, television programs, and a 1995 gospel album entitled 'Verity Records Presents: A Tribute to Mrs. Rosa Parks'.
- In 1998, the hip-hop group OutKast, under the LaFace Records label, released the album Aquemini, which featured a song titled 'Rosa Parks'.
- A sticker on the album advertised the 'hit single' 'Rosa Parks' and included a parental advisory for explicit content.
- The song's lyrics do not refer to Rosa Parks or the civil rights movement, but the chorus repeats the line, 'Ah ha, hush that fuss / Everybody move to the back of the bus'.
- A member of OutKast stated in an interview that the song was not intended to be about Rosa Parks but was a symbolic message for other rappers ('MCs') to 'move to the back of the bus,' meaning to take a back seat to OutKast.
Procedural Posture:
- Rosa Parks sued LaFace Records and OutKast in the Wayne County Circuit Court of Michigan, a state trial court.
- Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, a federal trial court.
- Parks filed an amended complaint, adding a federal false advertising claim under the Lanham Act.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, holding that their First Amendment rights were a complete defense to Parks' claims.
- Parks, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 First Amendment provide a complete defense, as a matter of law, against Lanham Act and right of publicity claims when an artist uses a celebrity's name as the title for a song whose artistic relevance to the song's content is disputed?
Opinions:
Majority - Holschuh, District Judge
No, the First Amendment does not provide a complete defense as a matter of law in such cases. To balance First Amendment rights with intellectual property rights in the context of artistic titles, courts must apply the Rogers v. Grimaldi test. Under that test, summary judgment is inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the title 'Rosa Parks' has any artistic relevance to the song's content. The court rejected the 'likelihood of confusion' and 'alternative avenues' tests as insufficient to protect First Amendment interests in artistic expression. It adopted the two-pronged Rogers test, which protects an artistic title unless it has 1) no artistic relevance to the underlying work, or 2) if it has relevance, it explicitly misleads as to the source or content. Here, a reasonable jury could conclude that the song has nothing to do with Rosa Parks and that her name was appropriated solely for its marketing power, thus failing the first prong of the Rogers test. The defendants' claim that the title is 'symbolic' is a question of fact for a jury to decide, not a legal conclusion for a court on summary judgment. Therefore, the case must be remanded for a jury to determine whether the title is artistically relevant to the song.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the Rogers test as the governing standard in the Sixth Circuit for balancing First Amendment artistic expression against celebrity rights under the Lanham Act and the right of publicity. It clarifies that an artist's claim of 'symbolic' or 'metaphorical' use is not an automatic shield from liability; the asserted artistic relevance must be genuine and is subject to factual review by a jury. The ruling empowers celebrities to challenge uses of their names on artistic works where the connection seems pretextual or purely commercial, shifting the determination from a judge's legal ruling to a jury's factual finding. This creates a higher burden for artists and producers who use celebrity names in titles, as they may now have to defend the artistic connection at trial rather than winning on a motion for summary judgment.
Unlock the full brief for Parks v. LaFace Records