naxco.blogg.se

The majority of the opinion is centered around the Court of Appeal’s acceptance of the Plaintiff’s argument that 47 U.S.C. §540.08 and not under the District Court’s Fla. However, The Court of Appeals dismisses the publicity claim under Fla. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding the Plaintiff’s right of publicity claim was dismissed under Florida state law and not under the Federal CDA. The central issue before the appellate court was whether the CDA preempted the Plaintiff’s state law claims. On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the CDA should not preempt her state law claims because: (1) the court raised the CDA preemption sua sponte when Amazon should have brought the argument before the court (2) right of publicity is an intellectual property right and the CDA does not apply to intellectual property claims and (3) Amazon is an “ information content provider.” Additionally, the District Court concluded that if the CDA did not preempt the Plaintiff’s claims, the suit was barred by Fla. However, because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act preempts conflicting state law claims the District Court granted sua sponte the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims. §772.11 (civil theft), and common law privacy.

In 2002, Plaintiff discovered the photograph on the cover of the second edition book on Amazon. However, in 2001, a second edition of Anjos Proibidos was published with the Plaintiff’s photograph on the cover. The Plaintiff’s mother consented to the photographs and the use of the photograph inside the first edition of Anjos Proibidos. In 1991, a fashion photographer requested to take photographs of the ten-year-old Plaintiff for an artistic photo exhibit. 4.2 Right of Publicity Claim under Fla.