a recent case. In Ruffin-Steinback v. dePasse, friends and family members of the Motown group, the “Temptations,” sued the makers of a televised mini-series for the manner in which they and the former group members were portrayed in the film. 82 F.Supp.2d 723, 726-27 (E.D.Mich.2000), aff'd, 267 F.3d 457 (6th Cir.2001). The plaintiffs alleged that their likenesses were appropriated to endorse a product, the film, without their permission. Id. at 728. The court found in that case that the plaintiffs could not overcome the defendant’s First Amendment defense, even where the portrayal of the plaintiffs was partly fictionalized, and even where the likenesses of the plaintiffs were used to promote a videocassette version of the mini-series. Id. at 730-31; see also Seale, 949 F.Supp. at 337 (<HOLDING>). As with the Lanham Act, then, we must conduct
holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding that the texas antidilution statute was not intended to address nontrademark uses of a name protected by the first amendment holding first amendment claim requires actual protected conduct holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment holding that the film panther which used the name and likeness of black panther found er bobby seale was protected by the first amendment