Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
M2D Running Man

M2D Running Man

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,596|Likes:
Published by Panda Kroll
M2D Complaint in lemerond v. twentieth century fox film corp., 2008 u.s. dist. lexis 26947 (s.d.n.y. march 31 2008)
M2D Complaint in lemerond v. twentieth century fox film corp., 2008 u.s. dist. lexis 26947 (s.d.n.y. march 31 2008)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Panda Kroll on Mar 30, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/16/2009

pdf

text

original

 
 
 \\\NY - 027721/000002 - 1049606 v2
Slade R. Metcalf (SM 8360)Katherine M. Bolger (KM 6206)Jason P. Conti (JC 0581)Hogan & Hartson LLP875 Third AvenueNew York, NY 10022Telephone: (212) 918-3000Facsimile: (212) 918-3100
 Attorneys for Defendant Twentieth Century FoxFilm Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK-----------------------------------------------------------------------XJEFFREY LEMEROND, ::Plaintiff, : Case No.: 07 CIV 4635 (LAP): – against ::TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP., ::Defendant. :-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF TWENTIETH CENTURYFOX FILM CORPORATION IN SUPPORT OF ITSMOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
HOGAN & HARTSON LLPSlade R. Metcalf (SM 8360)Katherine M. Bolger (KB 6206)Jason P. Conti (JC 0581)875 Third AvenueNew York, New York 10022Tel. (212) 918-3000Fac. (212) 918-3100Attorneys for Defendant Twentieth CenturyFox Film Corporation
 
 
 \\\NY - 027721/000002 - 1049606 v2
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................iiPRELIMINARY STATEMENT.....................................................................................................1FACTUAL BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................2A. The Parties...........................................................................................................................2B. The Complaint.....................................................................................................................2C. The Film And The Sequence...............................................................................................3ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................5I PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR COMMERCIAL MISAPPROPRIATIONMUST FAIL BECAUSE THE FILM IS NEWSWORTHY ANDBECAUSE THE USE OF PLAINTIFF’S IMAGE BEARS A REALRELATIONSHIP TO THE THEME OF THE FILM................................................................5A. The Standard On A Motion To Dismiss..............................................................................5B. Plaintiff’s Misappropriation Claim Must Fail Because Use Of His Image Had AReal Relationship To The Public Interest And Newsworthiness Of The Film....................61. There Must Be A
 Direct,
 
Commercial 
Misappropriation Of AnIndividual’s Image Or Name To Maintain A Section 51 Claim....................................7a. The Film Is Newsworthy And Pertains To A Matter Of Public Interest..................9b. The Inclusion Of Plaintiff In The Film Has A Real RelationshipTo Its Newsworthy Purpose...................................................................................134. Any Discussion Regarding The Ability Of The Film To Make A ProfitOr Plaintiff’s Level Of EmbarrassmentIs Not Relevant To The Section 51 Inquiry.................................................................15II PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR QUANTUM MERUIT/UNJUSTENRICHMENT IS SUBSUMED BY HIS MISAPPROPRIATIONCLAIM, AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DISMISSED....................................................17CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................18
 
 
 \\\NY - 027721/000002 - 1049606 v2
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPageFederal Cases:
 Allen v. St. Cabrini Nursing Home, Inc.,
No. 00 CIV 8558 CM, 2001 WL 286788 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2001)........................................16
 Arnold v. ABC, Inc.,
No. 06 Civ. 1747(GBD), 2007 WL 210330 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2007)......................................3
 Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
,466 U.S. 485 (1984)...................................................................................................................6
Cerasani v. Sony Corp.
,991 F. Supp. 343 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).............................................................................................5
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
,282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002).......................................................................................................3
Church of Scientology, Int'l v. Time Warner, Inc.
,903 F. Supp. 637 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).........................................................................................5, 6
Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P.
,949 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1991).........................................................................................................3
Glickman v. Stern
,19 Med. L. Rptr. 1769 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Oct. 15, 1991),
aff'd 
, 188 A.D.2d 387, 592 N.Y.S.2d 581 (1st Dep't 1992).........................................10, 11, 12
 Hoepker v. Kruger
,200 F. Supp. 2d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)........................................................................................7
 Hurwitz v. United States
,884 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1989),
cert. denied 
, 493 U.S. 1056 (1990)............................................................................................7
 International Jet Markets, Inc. v. Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc.,
No. 95 CIV. 7967(TPG), 1997 WL 501685 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 1997)..................................17
 Jones v. Turner,
No. 94 Civ. 8603 (PKL), 1995 WL 106111 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 1995).................................7, 16
Kane v. Comedy Partners,
No. 00 Civ. 158(GBD), 2003 WL 22383387 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2003)..........................11, 12

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->