Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida answered a certified question concerning whether Florida Statutes section 540.08 applies to a motion picture that uses a person's name or likeness without directly promoting a product or service. The court approved the construction in Loft v. Fuller and held that the statute's commercial-purpose language does not apply to publications, including motion pictures, that do not directly promote a product or service. The court affirmed the First Amendment considerations underlying that interpretation while limiting its decision to the certified question.

Holdings

1. The term "commercial purpose" in section 540.08(1), Florida Statutes, does not apply to publications, including motion pictures, that do not directly promote a product or service.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the phrase "for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose" in section 540.08(1), Florida Statutes, includes publications that do not directly promote a product or service.
2. Whether a motion picture that uses a person's name or likeness as part of an expressive work, rather than to endorse or directly promote an unrelated product or service, falls within section 540.08's prohibition.

Disposition

other