90 F. Supp. 3d 1256
M.D. Ala.2015Background
- Plaintiff Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development (Parks Institute), a Michigan nonprofit that owns rights to Rosa Parks’s name/likeness, sued Target after discovering a collage-style plaque and several books/movies sold by Target featuring Rosa Parks.
- Parks Institute amended its complaint to assert state-law claims only: right of publicity (misappropriation) and unjust enrichment; later identified eight challenged items beyond the plaque (seven books and one movie).
- Target moved for summary judgment, arguing the books and movie are biographical works protected by the First Amendment and that the plaque also concerns matters of public interest; Target discontinued sale of the plaque in 2013.
- Court applied Alabama choice-of-law rules and concluded Michigan substantive law governs because the asserted injury (financial harm to a Michigan corporation) arose in Michigan.
- Court examined Michigan precedent (and analogous authority) on publicity/appropriation claims and the First Amendment’s protection for biographical, historical, educational, and artistic works.
- Holding: summary judgment for Target on all claims — the seven books and the movie are protected biographical works, and the collage plaque is protected as a matter of public/historical interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law | Michigan law should not control; forum law applies | Alabama choice-of-law; injury location controls; injury occurred in Michigan | Michigan substantive law applies because the financial injury giving rise to the claim occurred in Michigan |
| Do the books/movie violate publicity/right-of-publicity? | Parks Institute: First Amendment does not permit Target to commercially exploit Rosa Parks’s name/likeness without consent | Target: books/movie are biographical works entitled to First Amendment protection; not commercial appropriation | Books and movie are biographical works; First Amendment bars publicity/misappropriation liability — summary judgment for Target |
| Do derivative claims (misappropriation, unjust enrichment) survive? | Derivative claims are distinct and actionable | Derivative claims depend on right-of-publicity; if publicity claim fails, derivatives fail | Derivative claims dismissed as they are dependent on the protected biographical works ruling |
| Is the collage plaque actionable appropriation? | Parks Institute: plaque commercially exploited Parks’s likeness; not a protected biography | Target: plaque conveys historical/educational/artistic value about Civil Rights; qualifies for public-interest/First Amendment protection | Plaque treated as historical/artistic expression concerning a matter of public interest; protected by First Amendment — summary judgment for Target |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816 (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275 (genuine dispute standard at summary judgment)
- Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Fed. Mut. Ins. Co., 135 F.3d 750 (federal courts apply forum state choice-of-law rules)
- Ruffin-Steinback v. dePasse, 82 F. Supp. 2d 723 (Michigan court-level analysis: unauthorized biographies generally not actionable under publicity principles)
- Battaglieri v. Mackinac Ctr. for Pub. Policy, 261 Mich. App. 296 (Michigan recognizes appropriation-type privacy claim but First Amendment protects matters of legitimate public concern)
- Ex parte U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 148 So.3d 1060 (Alabama choice-of-law analysis on situs of injury)