choices as to the book cover images it displays on its website. That choice was made by the publisher Ophelia Editions. Moreover, Almeida does not allege that Amazon’s display of her image emphasized her role in Cabral’s photo exhibit, or that it can be distinguished from Amazon’s customary display of book cover images. Rather, we find that, as a matter of business practice, Amazon’s use of book cover images closely simulates a customer’s experience browsing book covers in a traditional book store. Thus, it is clear that Amazon’s use of book cover images is not an endorsement or promotion of any product or service, but is merely incidental to, and customary for, the business of internet book sales. See Vinci v. Am. Can Co., 69 Ohio App.3d 727, 591 N.E.2d 793, 794 (Ohio Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C cmt. d
holding that the shape of a product was not an advertising idea because there was no allegation in the complaint that the design itself was a trademark or was intended to distinguish the product from others that might enter the market citation omitted holding that informational blurbs about charles vinci the 1956 and 1960 weightlifting olympic gold medalist on dixie cups was merely incidental to the promotion of the dixie cups and thus permissible holding that the mention of olympic athletes names was incidental to the promotion of dixie cups and thus not a violation of ohios common law right of appropriation because the use was purely informational and there was no implication that the athletes used supported or promoted the product holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion by admitting expert testimony on future compensation rates for marine engineer positions where it was based on a meba union officials testimony regarding promotion the jury was given information to assess the plaintiffs chances of promotion and the juiy was clearly instructed that the testimony was only relevant if they found that the plaintiff would have been promoted holding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of the defendants requested expert as there was no undue prejudice to the defendant because the defendants claim on the predicted effect of the experts testimony was purely speculative