812 F.3d 824
11th Cir.2016Background
- Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute (Michigan nonprofit) owns rights to Rosa Parks's name and likeness by assignment and sued Target for selling books, a movie, and a collage plaque that used Parks’s image or name.
- Products at issue: six nonfiction/biographical books (one autobiography), a TV movie, and a decorative plaque depicting Parks and civil-rights imagery; Target merely retailed these items (no indication items were authored or produced by Target).
- Institute alleged unjust enrichment, right-of-publicity, and misappropriation under Michigan common law, claiming Target used Parks’s identity for commercial advantage without consent.
- District court granted summary judgment for Target and dismissed the complaint; Institute appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which applied Michigan substantive law under Erie and Alabama procedural rules.
- Key legal question: whether Michigan’s qualified privilege for communications on matters of public interest bars Michigan common-law right-of-publicity/misappropriation claims based on use of Parks’s name/likeness in works about the Civil Rights Movement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Target’s sale of books/movie/plaques using Parks’s name/likeness violated Michigan right of publicity | Institute: Target appropriated commercial value of Parks’s identity by selling items without consent | Target: Items are bona fide works about Parks/Civil Rights; sale is distribution of protected speech on public interest matters | Held: Michigan’s qualified privilege for matters of public interest protects these works; no actionable appropriation |
| Whether Michigan’s qualified privilege applies to right-of-publicity/misappropriation claims | Institute: Privilege should not defeat a publicity right held by assignee | Target: Privilege shields communications about matters of public interest, including historical figures like Parks | Held: Privilege covers the books, movie, and plaque because Parks and the Civil Rights Movement are matters of highest public interest |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim survives if publicity claim fails | Institute: Unjust enrichment based on Target’s benefit from using Parks’s identity | Target: Unjust enrichment derivative of failed publicity/misappropriation claims; no independent liability | Held: Unjust enrichment fails as derivative of the rejected publicity claim |
| Choice of law / procedural issues (statute of limitations, single-publication rule) | Institute: invoked diversity jurisdiction; brought Michigan substantive claims | Target: choice-of-law and statute defenses could limit claims | Held: Court applied Michigan substantive law; noted Alabama limitations issues but resolved case on Michigan privilege, so did not decide single-publication application |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (landmark repudiation of separate-but-equal; historical context)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal courts in diversity apply state substantive law)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (public-interest speech receives strong constitutional protection)
- Tobin v. Mich. Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 331 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. 1982) (Michigan recognizes four privacy torts including appropriation/right of publicity)
- Peisner v. Detroit Free Press, 266 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978) (qualified privilege attaches to matters of general public interest)
- Battaglieri v. Mackinac Ctr. for Pub. Pol’y, 680 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (description of right-of-publicity foundation in Michigan)
- Bichler v. Union Bank & Trust Co. of Grand Rapids, 745 F.2d 1006 (6th Cir. 1984) (applying Michigan law to extend qualified privilege to bar certain privacy claims)