also argue that even if Plaintiffs had asserted a cognizable claim under Michigan law, that claim must fail because it is preempted by the First Amendment. The Court agrees. The First Amendment protects expressive works from right of publicity actions unless the use of the plaintiffs identity (or, in this case, distinctive sound) “is ‘wholly unrelated’ to the content of the work or was ‘simply a disguised commercial advertisement for the sale of goods.’ ” Parks, 329 F.3d at 461 (citing Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 1004 (2d Cir.1989)). A threshold question, then, is whether the Game constitutes an expressive work. Numerous courts have held that video games are expressive works protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683, 696 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); E.S.S. Entm’t 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos,
holding that the first amendment protects the right to criticize a grand jury investigation holding miranda violation does not invalidate consent to search as fifth amendment only protects testimonial and communicative evidence holding that the first amendment protects communicative aspects of video games holding that a video game clearly qualifies as an artistic work entitled to first amendment protection holding that the video games at issue are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment