U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. However, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party’s] position will be insufficient.” Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. With these principles in mind, the court turns to an analysis of the pending motions for summary judgment. III. APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION The court will first determine whether the undisputed facts of this case establish that CBC has violated the players’ claimed right of publicity. Only if that right is violated need the court consider whether under the facts of this case federal copyright law preempts the right of publicity and/or whether the First Amendment trumps the right of publicity. See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 161, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the court will discuss each of
recognizing state laws can be preempted by federal regulations as well as by federal legislation holding that wjhere such a transaction involves commerce within the meaning of the federal arbitration statute the state law and policy with respect thereto must yield to the paramount federal law holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws holding that in interpreting a contract we look to the conflict of laws rules of  the forum state  to determine which states laws will be controlling holding that state laws must yield to federal law when the former poses a substantial threat to federal laws ability to accomplish its mission