gauck v thedirty.com / thedirtyarmy.com | us district court

5/22/2018 Gauck v TheDirty.com / TheDirtyArmy.com | US DISTRICT COURT

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

LAUREN LEE GAUCK,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

)

)))))))))))))

No. 2: 11- cv- 02346- J PM- t mp

v.

HOOMAN KARAMI AN a/ k/ a CORBI NGRI MES a/ k/ a NI K RI CHI E, DI RTYWORLD, LLC d/ b/ a THEDI RTY. COMand/ or THEDI RTYARMY. COM;DI RTY, I NC. ; THE DI RTY, LLC;DI RTY WORLD ENTERTAI NMENT,LLC; and DI RTY SCOTTSDALE,LLC;

Def endant s.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Bef or e t he Cour t i s Pl ai nt i f f Laur en Lee Gauck s

( Pl ai nt i f f or Gauck) Appl i cat i on f or Tempor ar y Rest r ai ni ng

Or der and Or der t o Show Cause ( Docket Ent r y ( D. E. ) 4) , f i l ed

May 4, 2011, whi ch the Cour t const r ued as a Mot i on f or a

Pr el i mi nary I nj unct i on on May 9, 2011 ( D. E. 5) . Def endant s

Hooman Karami an a/ k/ a Corbi n Gr i mes a/ k/ a Ni k Ri chi e ( Ri chi e) ,

Di r t y Wor l d, LLC d/ b/ a TheDi r t y. com and/ or TheDi r t yAr my. com

( Di r t y Wor l d) ( col l ect i vel y Def endant s) r esponded i n

opposi t i on on J une 17, 2011. ( D. E. 22. ) Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a

r epl y on J une 29, 2011. ( D. E. 31. ) Wi t h l eave of t he Cour t ,

Def endant s f i l ed a sur - r epl y on J ul y 6, 2011. ( D. E. 34. )

The Cour t hel d a prel i mi nary i nj unct i on hear i ng on J ul y

21, 2011. Pr esent f or Pl ai nt i f f wer e C. Bar r y War d, Esq. and

Case 2:11-cv-02346-JPM-tmp Document 46 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 16 PageID 348


2

Ri char d Townl ey, Esq. Pr esent f or Def endant s was Br ent Si l er ,

Esq. Pl ai nt i f f Laur en Lee Gauck1 was al so pr esent .

The Cour t , havi ng car ef ul l y r evi ewed t he submi ssi ons of t he

part i es, and havi ng heard t he ar gument s of counsel at t he

hear i ng, her eby DENI ES Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on f or t he r easons st at ed bel ow.

I. BACKGROUND

The var i ous Def endant s named i n Pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt own

and operat e t he websi t e TheDi r t y. com. Founded i n 2007 by

cur r ent edi t or - i n- chi ef Ri chi e, t he si t e pr ovi des a f or um f or

users t o submi t di r t on t hemsel ves and other s, whi ch can

i ncl ude news, photos, vi deo or t ext , and t o comment on mater i al

submi t t ed by ot her s. ( Af f . of Ni k Lamas- Ri chi e ( Ri chi e Af f . )

( D. E. 34- 1) 2, 7. ) Accor di ng t o Def endant s, t he si t e i s

devot ed t o publ i shi ng news, gossi p, humor , and sat i r i cal

comment ar y about a wi de var i et y of t opi cs . . . . ( Def s.

Opp n t o Pl . s Mot . f or Pr el i m. I nj . ( Def s. Resp. ) ( D. E. 22)

2. )

Si nce i t s i ncept i on, TheDi r t y. com has gr own si gni f i cant l y

i n i t s popul ar i t y and cur r ent l y r ecei ves an aver age of 18

mi l l i on hi t s per mont h. ( Ri chi e Af f . 6. ) I n i t s i nf ancy, t he

cont ent of t he si t e was l ar gel y creat ed by Ri chi e. ( I d. 7. )

1 Pl ai nt i f f was mar r i ed f ol l owi ng t he f i l i ng of her compl ai nt .Pl ai nt i f f s mar r i ed name i s Laur en Lee Gauck Gi ovanet t i .



3

Today, however , t he maj or i t y of t he mat er i al appear i ng on t he

si t e i s compr i sed of submi ssi ons upl oaded di r ect l y t o t he si t e

by t hi r d par t y user s. ( I d. 7. ) As of J ul y 2011, t he si t e

cont ai ns more t han 75, 000 uni que post s on a wi de var i ety of

t opi cs . ( I d. 8. )

Def endant s expl ai n that , al t hough submi ssi ons t o t he si t e

are gener al l y r evi ewed and moder ated by Ri chi e, user - gener ated

post s appear i ng on TheDi r t y. com ar e not f act - checked f or

accur acy. ( I d. at 2. ) A di scl ai mer appear i ng at t he bot t om of

t he si t e st at es: The cont ent t hat i s publ i shed cont ai ns r umor s,

specul at i on, assumpt i ons, opi ni ons, and f act ual i nf or mat i on.

Post i ngs may cont ai n er r oneous or i naccur at e i nf or mat i on. . . .

The owner of t hi s si t e does not ensur e t he accurancy of any

cont ent pr esent ed on TheDi r t y. com. See The Di r t y,

ht t p: / / t hedi r t y. com/ ( l ast vi s i t ed J ul y 22, 2011) .

Pl ai nt i f f i s a t el evi si on news r epor t er f or Fox 13 News i n

Memphi s, Tennessee. ( Compl . 11. ) I n or ar ound Apr i l 2011,

Pl ai nt i f f l ear ned t hat she was t he put at i ve subj ect of t wo post s

submi t t ed t o TheDi r t y. com by a t hi r d par t y. ( Compl . 14- 16. )

The aut hors of t he post s cl ai med t hat Pl ai nt i f f used i l l i ci t

dr ugs, was sexual l y pr omi scuous, exchanged sexual f avors i n

r et urn f or drugs and money, and assaul t ed an unknown per son.

( I d. 15- 16. ) Pl ai nt i f f aver s that t he st at ement s ar e

pat ent l y f al se and def amat or y. ( I d. 17. )



4

The aut hor of t he f i r st post , dat ed Apr i l 12, 2011 and

ent i t l ed Chi Town Sl oot s, i ncl uded a phot o of Pl ai nt i f f wi t h

her f r i ends at t he beach wear i ng bi ki ni s. ( I d. 14. ) The

aut hor of t he second post , dated Apr i l 14, 2011 and ent i t l ed

Chi cago Gi r l s Need t o Be Exposed, i ncl uded a photo of

Pl ai nt i f f and t hr ee f r i ends at t endi ng a Chi cago Cubs basebal l

game. ( I d. 14. ) I n addi t i on, t he aut hor of t he second post

st at ed I am at t achi ng a f ew pi ct ur es f or your enj oyment . . . ,

and at t ached several phot os of a woman posi ng nude, exposi ng her

but t ocks, br easts, and geni t al i a. ( I d. ) Pl ai nt i f f asser t s, and

i t i s uncont r over t ed, t hat she i s not t he woman i n t he pi ct ur es

and does not know t he woman act ual l y pi ct ur ed t her ei n. ( I d. )

As t he si t e s moder at or , Ri chi e of t en post s shor t edi t or i al

comment s i n r esponse t o submi ssi ons f r om users, whi ch Ri chi e

char act er i zes as humorous and of t en somewhat negat i ve.

( Def s. Resp. 3. ) I n r esponse t o t he f i r st post , Ri chi e

comment ed No, t he anger comes f r om t hei r f ai l ur e i n l i f e, I

t hi nk i t s t i me t o swi t ch t o a 1 pi ece l adi es. ( I d. at 3. ) I n

r esponse t o t he second post , Ri chi e comment ed Pi ct ur es don t

l i e l adi es . . . t hese ar e t he same gi r l s who emai l me cr yi ng

sayi ng t hey have onl y sl ept wi t h one guy and are i nnocent good

gi r l s. ni k. ( I d. at 5. )

I n hi s af f i davi t , Ri chi e st at es t hat he di d not creat e or

mat er i al l y modi f y any par t of ei t her post i n quest i on. ( Ri chi e



5

Af f . 12, 15. ) He aver s t hat bot h t he t ext i n t he body of t he

post s and t he t i t l e of t he post s wer e creat ed ent i r el y by thi r d

par t i es. ( I d. ) Fur t her , Ri chi e st at es t hat t he post s wer e

publ i shed exact l y as submi t t ed, wi t hout any changes ot her t han

t he f ol l owi ng modi f i cat i ons made pur suant t o the si t e s gener al

pol i ci es: ( 1) Def endant s usual l y at t empt t o r edact pr of ani t y,

and i n t hese i nst ances, l et t er s i n sever al wor ds wer e r edact ed

and r epl aced wi t h ast er i sks; ( 2) as wi t h al l post s submi t t ed by

t hi r d par t i es, Def endant s added an i nt r oduct or y st at ement t hat

r ead THE DI RTY ARMY: t o r ef l ect t hat t he post was submi t t ed t o

t he si t e by a t hi r d- par t y user ; ( 3) pur suant t o a gener al pol i cy

not t o publ i sh phot os cont ai ni ng nudi t y, al l of t he nude i mages

submi t t ed wer e r edacted t o cover t he bathi ng sui t areas of t he

women shown i n t he phot os; and ( 4) t he phot os were aut omat i cal l y

wat er mar ked by Def endant s syst em wi t h a l ogo f r om t he si t e

pur suant t o t he user s el ect r oni c accept ance of a st andar d

l i censi ng agr eement . ( I d. )

Shor t l y af t er l ear ni ng about t he post s, Pl ai nt i f f cont act ed

Def endant s vi a emai l and request ed t hat t he post s be removed.

( Pl . s Repl y 5. ) Though Def endant s i ni t i al l y r ef used, t hey

r emoved t he post s and phot os af t er bei ng cont act ed by

Pl ai nt i f f s at t orney. ( I d. ) Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms, however , t hat

Ri chi e i nt ent i onal l y r epost ed t he pi ct ur es and/ or wr i t t en

mat t er per t ai ni ng to [ Pl ai nt i f f ] af t er t he commencement of t he



6

pr esent sui t . ( I d. ) Ri chi e stat es t hat thi s al l egat i on i s

100% f al se, t hat he has not r epost ed t he phot os si nce t hey

were r emoved, and t hat he does not i nt end t o repost t hem as

l ong as t hei r aut hent i ci t y r emai ns i n di sput e. ( Ri chi e Af f .

33- 34. )

On May 4, 2011, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed t he i nst ant l awsui t

asser t i ng cl ai ms f or : Count I : Def amat i on; Count I I : I nvasi on of

Pr i vacy Fal se Li ght ; Count I I I : Mi sappr opr i at i on of Name and

Li keness; Count I V: St at ut or y Mi sappr opr i at i on of Name,

Phot ogr aph, and Li keness; Count V: I nt ent i onal I nf l i ct i on of

Emot i onal Di st r ess; Count VI : I nvasi on of Pr i vacy I nt r usi on

upon Secl usi on and Publ i ci t y Gi ven t o Pr i vat e Li f e; Count VI I :

Ci vi l Conspi r acy; Count VI I I : Vei l Pi er ci ng and Vi car i ous

Li abi l i t y; and Count I X: I nj uncti ve Rel i ef . ( See gener al l y

Compl . )

I n t he i nst ant mot i on, Pl ai nt i f f seeks t o enj oi n Def endant s

f r om r epubl i shi ng the of f ensi ve post s and phot ogr aphs on

TheDi r t y. com. 2 At t he hear i ng, def ense counsel st at ed t hat

Def endant s had no i nt ent i on of r epubl i shi ng t he post s per t ai ni ng

t o Pl ai nt i f f . However , t he par t i es wer e unabl e t o come t o an

agr eement i n t hi s r egar d. ( See Ri chi e Af f . 33. )

2 I n t he mat er i al submi t t ed t o t he Cour t pr i or t o t he hear i ng,Pl ai nt i f f s r equest f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef was much br oader and was based onher def amat i on, i nvasi on of pr i vacy, and publ i ci t y r i ght s cl ai ms. At t heheari ng, however, Pl ai nt i f f c l ar i f i ed t hat her request f or i nj uncti ve rel i efwas based sol el y on her publ i ci t y ri ght s cl ai m and l i mi t ed t o enj oi ngDef endant s f r om r epubl i shi ng t he t wo post s per t ai ni ng t o Pl ai nt i f f .



7

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i s an ext r aor di nary r emedy whi ch

shoul d be gr ant ed onl y i f t he movant car r i es hi s or her bur den

of pr ovi ng t hat t he ci r cumst ances cl ear l y demand i t .

Over st r eet v. Lexi ngt on- Fayet t e Ur ban Cnt y. Gov t , 305 F. 3d 566,

573 ( 6t h Ci r . 2002) . A di st r i ct cour t s det er mi nat i on on

whet her t o i ssue a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i s wi t hi n t he

di scr et i on of t he cour t . Basi comput er Cor p. v. Scot t , 973 F. 2d

507, 511 ( 6t h Ci r . 1992) .

When deci di ng whet her t o gr ant pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i ve

r el i ef , a cour t must consi der t he f ol l owi ng f act or s:

( 1) whether t he movant has shown a st r ong l i kel i hoodof success on t he mer i t s; ( 2) whet her t he movant wi l lsuf f er i r r eparabl e harm i f t he i nj unct i on i s noti ssued; ( 3) whet her t he i ssuance of t he i nj unct i onwoul d cause subst ant i al har m t o ot her s; and ( 4)whet her t he publ i c i nt er est woul d be ser ved by i ssui ng

t he i nj uncti on.

Over st r eet , 305 F. 3d at 573. [ T] he f our f act or s ar e not

pr er equi si t es t o be met , but r at her must be bal anced as par t of

a deci si on t o gr ant or deny i nj unct i ve r el i ef . Per f or mance

Unl i mi t ed, I nc. v. Quest ar Publ i sher s, I nc. , 52 F. 3d 1373, 1381

( 6t h Ci r . 1995) ( ci t i ng I n r e DeLor ean Mot or Co. , 755 F. 2d 1223,

1229 ( 6t h Ci r . 1985) ) .

The f i r st f act or t he l i kel i hood of successi s t he

pr edomi nant concer n. Al t hough no one f act or i s cont r ol l i ng, a

f i ndi ng t hat t her e i s si mpl y no l i kel i hood of success on t he



8

mer i t s i s usual l y f at al . Gonzal es v. Nat i onal Bd. of Med.

Exam r s, 225 F. 3d 620, 625 ( 6t h Ci r . 2000) ; see al so Mi chi gan

St at e AFL- CI O v. Mi l l er , 103 F. 3d 1240, 1249 ( 6t h Ci r . 1997)

( Whi l e, as a gener al mat t er , none of t hese f our f act or s are

gi ven cont r ol l i ng wei ght , a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i ssued wher e

t her e i s si mpl y no l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s must be

r ever sed. ) .

III. ANALYSIS

Pl ai nt i f f moves f or i nj uncti ve r el i ef sol el y on t he basi s

of her publ i ci t y r i ght s cl ai m. 3 Def endant s oppose Pl ai nt i f f s

mot i on, ar gui ng t hat i nj unct i ve r el i ef shoul d be deni ed because

Pl ai nt i f f cannot show a l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s. 4

( Def s. Resp. 11, 14- 17. )

The Tennessee Legi sl at ur e codi f i ed t he r i ght of publ i ci t y

i n 1984 when i t enacted the Tennessee Per sonal Ri ght s Pr otect i on

3 The Cour t wi l l assume, f or pur poses of t hi s mot i on, that Pl ai nt i f f spubl i ci t y r i ght s cl ai m f al l s wi t hi n t he CDA s statut or y excl usi on f or cl ai mst hat ar i se f r om any l aw per t ai ni ng t o i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y. 47 U. S. C. 230( e) ( 2) .

4 Def endant s make t he f ol l owi ng addi t i onal ar gument s: ( 1) Pl ai nt i f f sr equest i s moot t o the ext ent t hat t he post s have al r eady been r emoved; ( 2)pr ospecti ve i nj uncti ve rel i ef i s a pr i or r estr ai nt i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi rstAmendment ; ( 3) t he Communi cat i ons Decency Act ( t he CDA) , 47 U. S. C. 230,whi ch pr ovi des i nt er act i ve ser vi ce pr ovi der s i mmuni t y f r om l i abi l i t y f or any

cause of act i on t hat woul d t r eat t he pr ovi der as a publ i sher of t hi r d- par t ycont ent , expressl y bar s i nj uncti ve r el i ef i n t hi s cont ext ; and ( 4) Pl ai nt i f fi s unl i kel y to succeed on t he mer i t s of her publ i ci t y r i ght s cl ai m because,( i ) whi l e t he CDA exempt s f eder al i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y cl ai ms f r om t he scopeof i t s i mmuni t y, t he exempt i on does not appl y t o i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y cl ai msbased on st ate l aw, and ( i i ) Def endant s can avai l t hemsel ves of t he f ai r usedef ense. ( See gener al l y Def s. Resp. ) The Cour t need not r each t he meri t s oft hese addi t i onal ar gument s, however , because the Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f fhas f ai l ed to demonst r at e a l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s of herpubl i ci t y r i ght s cl ai m.



9

Act ( TPRPA) . 5 Tenn. Code Ann. 27- 25- 1101 et seq. I n

per t i nent par t , t he TPRPA pr ovi des t hat :

[ a] ny per son who knowi ngl y uses or i nf r i nges upon t he

use of anot her i ndi vi dual s name, phot ogr aph, orl i keness i n any medi um, i n any manner di r ect ed t o anyper son ot her t han such i ndi vi dual , as an i t em ofcommer ce f or pur poses of adver t i si ng pr oduct s,mer chandi se, goods, or ser vi ces, or f or pur poses of .. . pur chases of pr oduct s, mer chandi se, goods, orser vi ces, wi t hout such i ndi vi dual s pr i or consent , . .. shal l be l i abl e t o a ci vi l act i on.

Tenn. Code Ann. 27- 25- 1105( a) . The st at ut e was i nt ended t o

cr eat e an i nher i t abl e pr oper t y r i ght f or t hose peopl e who use

t hei r names or l i kenesses i n a commerci al manner , such as an

ent er t ai ner or spor t s f i gur esomeone who uses hi s or her name

f or endor sement pur poses. Appl e Cor ps. Lt d. v. A. D. P. R. , I nc. ,

843 F. Supp. 342, 348 ( M. D. Tenn. 1993) ( quot i ng Senator Kyl e,

sponsor of t he TPRPA, f r om t he Apr i l 5, 1984 audi o recor di ng of

t he Tennessee l egi sl at i ve sessi on) ( i nt er nal punct uat i on

omi t t ed) .

5 Tennessee s common l aw and st atut ory r i ght s of publ i ci t y arecoextensi ve and l i mi t ed t o commer ci al use f or pur poses of adver t i si ng orsol i c i t i ng a product or servi ce. Cf . St at e ex rel . El vi s Presl ey I nt ern.Memor i al Foundat i on v. Cr owel l , 733 S. W. 2d 89, 96 (Tenn. Ct . App. 1987)( not i ng t hat t he General Assembl y undert ook t o [ def i ne t he parameters of t her i ght of publ i ci t y] when i t enact ed [ t he TPRPA] ) ; El vi s Pr esl ey Ent er s, I nc.v. El vi sl y Your s, I nc. , 936 F. 2d 889 ( 6t h Ci r . 1991) ( hol di ng t hat t hepr ovi si on of t he i nj uncti on i ssued by t he di st r i ct cour t on t he pl ai nt i f f s

common l aw and st at ut ory r i ght s of publ i ci t y, whi ch pr ohi bi t ed t he def endant sf r omusi ng the t r ademarks f or any pur pose whatsoever , was t oo br oadi nsof ar as i t cover[ ed] more t han t he unaut hor i zed commerci al use orexpl oi t at i on of EPE s r i ght s); see al so Cor del l v. Det ecti ve Publ i cat i ons,I nc. , 307 F. Supp. 1212, 1217 ( E. D. Tenn. 1968) , af f d , 419 F. 2d 989 ( 6t hCi r . 1969) ( r ej ecti ng t he pl ai nt i f f s common l aw r i ght of publ i ci t y cl ai m andnoti ng that t he char ge that t he def endant ' s publ i cat i on was pri mar i l y t oadvance t he def endant ' s commerci al i nterest s and was f or commerci alexpl oi t at i on does NOT st at e a cause of act i on f or appr opr i at i on. ) ( emphasi si n or i gi nal ) .



10

Pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat , by sel ecti vel y publ i shi ng post s

about Pl ai nt i f f based on her st at us as a t el evi si on news

r epor t er , Def endant s have expl oi t ed Pl ai nt i f f s i mage and

l i keness f or commer ci al gai n i n vi ol at i on of her r i ght of

publ i ci t y. ( Pl . s Repl y 13- 14. ) Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat

Def endant s unaut hor i zed use f al l s wi t hi n t he pr oscr i pt i on of

t he TPRPA because, by usi ng a l ocal news cel ebr i t y on t he si t e,

Def endant s i ncr eased t he vol ume of i nt er net users t o t he si t e.

( I d. at 14. ) Thi s i ncrease i n t raf f i c, Pl ai nt i f f asser t s ,

consequent l y i ncr eased Def endant s adver t i si ng revenue because

some of t he si t e vi si t or s vi ewed and cl i cked on adver t i sement s

and pur chased var i ous goods and ser vi ces. ( I d. ) Pl ai nt i f f t hus

ar gues t hat Def endant s ar e appr opr i at i ng i dent i t i es as an i t em

of commer ce, and t hat t hi s appr opr i at i on i s t he sour ce of

r evenue suppor t i ng t hei r websi t e. ( I d. )

Def endant s asser t t hat Pl ai nt i f f s publ i ci t y r i ght s cl ai m

f ai l s on i t s f ace because Def endant s di d not use Pl ai nt i f f s

name or l i keness f or pur poses of adver t i si ng or sol i ci t i ng any

goods or ser vi ces. ( I d. at 11. ) The Cour t agr ees.

The TPRPA does not prohi bi t all unaut hor i zed uses of

anot her ' s name or l i keness. Appl e Cor ps. , 843 F. Supp. at 347.

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Rat her , t he st at ut e i s nar r owl y

dr awn, i d. , pr oscr i bi ng onl y t he unaut hor i zed use of anot her s

name or l i keness i n adver t i si ng. I d. at 347 n. 2. The l i mi t ed



11

scope of uses pr ohi bi t ed by t he st at ut e was expl ai ned i n Appl e

Cor ps. I n a Beat l es l ook- al i ke per f or mance case, t he cour t

gr ant ed t he pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or par t i al summar y j udgment ,

f i ndi ng t hat , whi l e t he def endant s adver t i sement s f or t hei r

per f ormances di d vi ol at e t he TPRPA, t he per f ormances t hemsel ves

di d not . I d. at 347- 49. Even t hough t he def endant s engaged i n

t he per f ormances as a commerci al endeavor , t he cour t r easoned

t hat def endant s use of t he Beat l es per sonas dur i ng t he

per f ormances and t he Beat l es l ogo on t he gr oup s bass dr um di d

not vi ol ate t he TPRPA because t he st at ut e onl y f orbi ds use of

name or l i keness f or t he pur pose of adver t i si ng or

sol i ci t i ng pur chases of goods or ser vi ces. I d.

I n t hi s r egar d, Tennessee s r i ght of publ i ci t y i s nar r ower

t han t he Rest at ement appr oach adopt ed by ot her st at es, whi ch

pr ovi des t hat appr opr i at i on appl i es when the def endant makes

use of t he pl ai nt i f f s name or l i keness f or hi s own pur poses and

benef i t , even t hough t he use i s not a commerci al one, and even

t hough the benef i t sought t o be obt ai ned i s not a pecuni ar y

one. Rest atement ( Second) of Tor t s 652C, cmt . b.

Rel yi ng on t he Rest at ement , t he di st r i ct cour t i n Faegr e &

Benson, LLP v. Pur dy, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1238 ( D. Mi nn. 2005) ,

f ound t hat t he pl ai nt i f f st at ed a cl ai m agai nst t he def endant , a

websi t e oper at or , f or mi sappr opr i at i on based on t he oper at or s

use of t he pl ai nt i f f s name i n t he body of f our websi t e domai n



12

names. I d. at 1248. The cour t hel d t hat t he def endant

appr opr i at ed [ t he pl ai nt i f f s] name f or hi s own pur poses and

benef i t t o mi sl ead i nt er net user s i nt o vi si t i ng [ t he

def endant s] websi t e when t hey ar e act ual l y seeki ng [ t he

pl ai nt i f f s] websi t e and t o gai n[ ] t he benef i t of l ur i ng t he

user t o [ t he def endant s] si t e by expl oi t i ng [ t he pl ai nt i f f s]

name. I d. at 1248. By cont r ast , Tennessee s r i ght of

publ i ci t y i s nar r ower and appl i es onl y to an unaut hor i zed use i n

adver t i sement s or sol i ci t at i ons. Appl e Cor ps, 843 F. Supp. at

347.

Ot her cases where cour t s have f ound t hat t he unaut hor i zed

use of t he pl ai nt i f f s name or i mage vi ol at ed hi s or her r i ght

of publ i ci t y ar e l i kewi se di st i ngui shabl e f r om t he i nst ant case.

For exampl e, i n Cot on v. Tel evi sed Vi sual X- Ogr aphy, I nc. , 740

F. Supp. 2d 1299 ( M. D. Fl a. 2010) , t he cour t hel d t hat t he

def endant s pl acement of t he pl ai nt i f f s sel f - por t r ai t

pr omi nent l y on t he packagi ng of t he Body Magi c DVD f or t he

pur pose of market i ng a pornogr aphi c movi e wi t hout t he

pl ai nt i f f s per mi ssi on was a vi ol at i on of Fl or i da s statut or y

r i ght of publ i ci t y. 6 I d. at 1310- 11 ( ci t i ng Fl a. St at .

6 Fl or i da s r i ght of publ i ci t y st at ut e pr ovi des: No per son shal lpubl i sh, pr i nt , di spl ay or ot her wi se publ i cl y use f or t r ade or f or anycommer ci al or adver t i si ng pur pose t he name, port r ai t , photogr aph, or ot herl i keness of any nat ur al per son wi t hout t he expr ess wr i t t en or or al consent t osuch use gi ven by [ such person] . The Coton cour t noted t hat Fl ori da sst at ut e i s const r ued as r equi r i ng t hat t he unaut hori zed use of t he per son si mage di r ect l y pr omot e the pr oduct . I d. at 1310 ( ci t i ng Tyne v. Ti meWarner Ent m t Co. , L. P. , 901 So. 2d 802, 808 ( Fl a. 2005) ) . The cour t



13

540. 08) .

Si mi l ar l y, t he cour t i n Doe v. Fr i endf i nder Net wor k, I nc. ,

540 F. Supp. 2d 288, ( D. N. H. 2008) , r el i ed on a l eadi ng t r eat i se

and f ound t hat Pl ai nt i f f had st at ed a cl ai m f or i nf r i ngement of

her r i ght of publ i ci t y agai nst t he def endant s, oper at or s of

onl i ne web communi t i es where members coul d meet each ot her

t hr ough onl i ne per sonal adver t i sement s. I d. at 304 ( ci t i ng J .

Thomas McCart hy, The Ri ght s of Publ i ci t y and Pr i vacy, 3: 2 ( 2d

ed. 2000) ) . I n Doe, t he pl ai nt i f f al l eged t hat an unknown

t hi r d- par t y creat ed a pr of i l e t hat i ncl uded i dent i f i abl e aspect s

of her persona, t hat t he pr of i l e was pl aced on a number of t he

def endant s web communi t i es, and t hat t he def endant s t hen used

por t i ons of t he pr of i l e i n adver t i sement s and t easer s on ot her

websi t es t o dr aw users t o t he si t e and t o i ncr ease t he

pr of i t abi l i t y of t hei r busi ness. I d. The cour t deni ed t he

def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss, f i ndi ng t hat t he al l egat i ons wer e

suf f i ci ent t o stat e a cl ai m f or i nf r i ngement of t he pl ai nt i f f s

r i ght of publ i ci t y. I d.

Fi nal l y, i n Bosl ey v. Wi l dwet t . com, 310 F. Supp. 2d 914

( N. D. Ohi o 2004) , t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef

agai nst t he pr oducer s/ sel l er s of a wet t - shi r t cont est vi deot ape

expl ai ned, t her ef ore, t hat mer el y i ncl udi ng t he mi sappr opr i at ed i mage i n apubl i cat i on t hat i s sol d f or pr of i t i s i nsuf f i c i ent ; rather, t he harmemanat es f r om t he way that t he use associ at es t he per son s [ l i keness] wi t hsomet hi ng el se. I d.



14

based upon t he f act ual f i ndi ng t hat def endant pr omi nent l y

di spl ayed t he pl ai nt i f f ' s name, i mage, and l i keness on t he cover

of t he def endant s' vi deo, and t hat such adver t i sement s wer e not

mer el y i nci dent al t o t he pr omot i on of t hese pr oduct s. I d. at

923. The cour t emphasi zed t hat t he def endants made t he

edi t or i al choi ce t o make t he pl ai nt i f f t he f ocus of t hei r

adver t i sement s by pr omi nent l y di spl ayi ng t he pl ai nt i f f on t he

vi deot ape package, i n adver t i sement s, and on t hei r websi t e. I d.

I n addi t i on, t he def endant s mar ket i ng ef f or t s wer e ai med at

emphasi zi ng t he r ol e of t he pl ai nt i f f t he pl ai nt i f f was a l ocal

news anchorwoman and regi onal cel ebr i t y, whi ch f act t he vi deo

pr oducer s al l egedl y expl oi t ed by mar ket i ng t he vi deot ape wi t h an

emphasi s on t he appearance of t he naked anchor woman. I d. at

917.

I n each of t he af or ement i oned cases, t he pl ai nt i f f s

demonst r at ed a causal connect i on between the def endant s use of

t hei r per sona and a di r ect , non- i nci dent al benef i t t o t he

def endant s f r om t hat use. 7 By cont r ast , Pl ai nt i f f has not

demonst r at ed a causal connect i on i n t he i nst ant mat t er bet ween

7 To be sur e, t he TPRPA i s nar r ower t han t he r i ght of publ i ci t y cl ai msanal yzed i n t he af orement i oned cases. I n Coton, Doe, and Bosl ey, a mereshowi ng of a causal connect i on between t he unaut hor i zed use and a non-i nci dent al , di r ect benef i t t o t he def endant s was suf f i ci ent t o st at e a cl ai m.Under t he TPRPA, however , t he causal connect i on t hat Pl ai nt i f f must show i st he unaut hor i zed use of her name or i mage i n an advert i sement orsol i ci t at i on. Thus, even i f Pl ai nt i f f wer e abl e t o show t hat Def endant s useof her name and i mage r esul t ed i n an i ncr ease i n vi si t ors t o t he si t e oradver t i si ng r evenue, i t i s not ent i r el y cl ear t hat she woul d succeed on herpubl i ci t y r i ght s cl ai m.



15

Def endant s use of her name and i mage and an i ncr ease i n

vi si t or s t o t he si t e or adver t i si ng r evenue. Pl ai nt i f f has

of f er ed no evi dence t hat Def endant s market ed t hei r si t e by

emphasi zi ng Pl ai nt i f f s appear ance on t he si t e, used por t i ons of

t he post s i n t easer s on ot her si t es t o dr aw mor e vi si t or s,

pr omi nent l y di spl ayed t he post s r egar di ng Pl ai nt i f f on t he si t e,

adver t i sed Pl ai nt i f f s appear ance i n connect i on wi t h t he sal e of

any of Def endant s pr oduct s, or char ged hi gher pr emi ums t o

adver t i ser s f or adver t i si ng space on t he pages per t ai ni ng t o

Pl ai nt i f f .

At t he hear i ng, Def endant s acknowl edged t hat t he si t e makes

money, but emphasi zed t hat i t does not necessar i l y make money

f r om t he post s per t ai ni ng t o Pl ai nt i f f , whi ch const i t ut e t wo

post s out of over 75, 000 on t he si t e. Def endant s al so poi nt ed

out t hat t he of f endi ng post s ar e not used, and were never used,

t o adver t i se TheDi r t y. com. Pl ai nt i f f of f er ed no evi dence t o t he

cont r ar y.

I n her compl ai nt and br i ef s, Pl ai nt i f f has suggest ed, at

most , a cur r ent l y unsubst ant i ated connect i on bet ween t he gener al

use of cel ebr i t y per sonas on t he si t e and an i ncr ease i n t r af f i c

and/ or adver t i si ng r evenue. Pl ai nt i f f st at es t hat t hose post s

per t ai ni ng t o cel ebr i t i es per sonal l i ves ar e mor e val uabl e t han

t hose per t ai ni ng t o an aver age per son s because of t hei r

pot ent i al t o dr aw a wi der audi ence t o [ TheDi r t y. com] . ( Pl . s



16

Repl y 14. ) Pl ai nt i f f al so al l eges Def endant s adver t i si ng

r evenue i s bel i eved t o be di r ect l y rel at ed t o the vol ume of

hi t s on st or i es, pi ct ur es and comment s about a speci f i c

i ndi vi dual such as Pl ai nt i f f . ( I d. at 14 n. 2. ) However ,

Pl ai nt i f f s specul at i ve asser t i ons r egar di ng Def endant s

adver t i si ng r evenues ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o meet Pl ai nt i f f s bur den

of demonst r at i ng t hat she i s ent i t l ed t o i nj uncti ve r el i ef .

The Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o demonst r at e a

l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s of her r i ght of publ i ci t y

cl ai m under t he TPRPA. Thi s f i ndi ng i s di sposi t i ve of

Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. Gonzal es, 225

F. 3d at 625 ( [ A] f i ndi ng t hat t her e i s si mpl y no l i kel i hood of

success on t he mer i t s i s usual l y f at al . ) . Accor di ngl y, t he

Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o meet her bur den of

pr ovi ng ent i t l ement t o pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i ve r el i ef .

III. CONCLUSION

Fi ndi ng t hat Pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o establ i sh a l i kel i hood

of success on t he mer i t s, Pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on f or Pr el i mi nar y

I nj unct i on i s DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED, t hi s 29t h day of J ul y, 2011.

s/ J ON P. McCALLAJ ON P. McCALLACHI EF U. S. DI STRI CT J UDGE


gauck v thedirty.com / thedirtyarmy.com | us district court

Documents