public interest in avoiding confusion outweighs the public interest in free expression____[T]he public interest in free expression should prevail if the use of the celebrity’s image has artistic relevance, unless it is used in such a way that it explicitly misleads as to the source of the work.” ETW Corp. v. Jireh Pub., Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 928 (6th Cir.2003). The Court already has addressed the artistic merits of the Game and concluded that it is entitled to First Amendment protection. The question thus becomes whether Defendants use the Song in a way that explicitly misleads the public as to its source. Neither the Game nor any of its promotional materials “contains [any] explicit indication that [Plaintiffs] endorsed the [Game] or had a role in producing it.” Rogers, 875 F.2d at 1001 (<HOLDING>). Further, “consumers are not exposed to the
holding that a statute stating that a city ordinance may not make unlawful a condition or act approved or authorized under the act or the commissions rules or orders  was unmistakably clear holding that a film titled ginger and fred did not explicitly mislead consumers into believing that ginger rogers endorsed or approved of the film holding that home purchased with separate funds and titled in one spouses name was transmuted into marital property because home was used as marital residence and the other spouse contributed to payments and repairs on home recognizing that use of the then approved shotgun instruction would be improper if it coerced jury into agreement or unduly hastened their consideration holding that trustee could not have breached settlement agreement pending court approval by engaging in behavior violative of the agreement since bankruptcy court formally endorsed trustees course of action