Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP
901 So.2d 802 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The phrase 'for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose' in Florida's commercial misappropriation statute, § 540.08, does not apply to expressive works like motion pictures, books, or songs that do not directly promote a separate product or service.
Facts:
- In October 1991, the fishing vessel Andrea Gail and its six-person crew, including Billy Tyne and Dale Murphy, Sr., were lost at sea during a powerful storm.
- Sebastian Junger wrote a non-fiction book titled 'The Perfect Storm: A True Story of Men Against the Sea' recounting the event, based on news reports and interviews.
- Time Warner Entertainment Company (Warner Bros.) purchased the rights to the book and, in 2000, released a motion picture titled 'The Perfect Storm'.
- The film depicted the lives and deaths of the crewmembers, with Tyne and Murphy as main characters.
- Warner Bros. did not seek permission from, nor provide compensation to, the individuals or families of the crewmembers depicted in the film.
- The film was a 'concededly dramatized account' that fabricated scenes and relationships, though it was presented as being 'BASED ON A TRUE STORY'.
Procedural Posture:
- The children and families of deceased fishermen Billy Tyne and Dale Murphy, Sr. (Appellants) sued Time Warner Entertainment Company (Appellees) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- The suit alleged commercial misappropriation under Florida Statute § 540.08 and common law false light invasion of privacy.
- Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the film did not constitute a 'commercial purpose' under the statute.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Time Warner, dismissing all claims.
- Appellants appealed the district court's decision to the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Finding no controlling precedent from the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit certified a question of law regarding the scope of section 540.08 to the Supreme Court of Florida for resolution.
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 phrase 'for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose' in section 540.08(1), Florida Statutes, include publications, such as a motion picture, which do not directly promote a product or service?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wells
No. The phrase 'for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose' in section 540.08(1) does not include publications which do not directly promote a product or service. The court approved the reasoning in Loft v. Fuller, holding that the statute is designed to prevent the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to directly promote a separate product or service, not its use within an expressive work sold for profit. The court reasoned that construing the statute more broadly to include motion pictures and books would raise significant First Amendment concerns, as such expressive works are protected speech. The fact that a movie or book is sold for profit does not, by itself, transform it into a 'commercial purpose' under the statute. This narrow construction has been consistently applied by courts and tacitly approved by the Florida Legislature through its inaction over several decades.
Dissenting - Justice Lewis
Justice Lewis dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a narrow interpretation of Florida's right of publicity statute, creating a significant safe harbor for creators of expressive works like films, books, and music based on real people and events. By prioritizing First Amendment free speech principles, the court clearly distinguishes between using a likeness within a creative work and using it for pure commercial endorsement. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for individuals to bring successful misappropriation claims under § 540.08 against such works, forcing potential plaintiffs to prove their likeness was used to directly advertise a product or service separate from the work itself.
Unlock the full brief for Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP