Robles, Winoc v. Exparte

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the photographs in a collage were “combined to describe, in artistic form, a historic event in sports history and to convey a message about the significance of [Tiger] Woods‟s achievement in that event”
• holding that the photographs in a collage were “combined to describe, in artistic form, a historic event in sports history and to convey a message about the significance of [Tiger] Woods’s achievement in that event”
• holding prints of Tiger Woods reflecting his likeness constituted protected, crea- tive expression in the face of a right of publicity challenge
• explaining that while “Ohio recognizes the right of publicity as a part of the state’s common law” the state “has recently codified that right.”
• holding prints of Tiger Woods reflecting his likeness constituted protected, crea- tive expression in the face of a right of publicity challenge
• noting that “a Lanham Act false endorsement claim is the federal equivalent of the right of publicity” (citing Bruce P. Keller, The Right of Publicity: Past, Present, and Future, 1207 PLI CORP. LAW & PRAC. HANDBOOK 159, 170 (2000))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).