Lane v. Random House, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Because Lane’s picture and quotation are newsworthy and incidentally related to a protected speech product, they cannot form the basis for a successful misappropriation claim. Random House may invoke either the newsworthiness privilege or the incidental use privilege.”
• actual malice for false light same standard as defamation
• actual malice for false light same standard as defamation
• actual malice for false light same standard as defamation
• stating the ads “cannot be divorced from the book”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).