1. MEMORANDUM
TO: Junior Associates, RWA Sections 13 & 16
FROM: Senior Partner Goering
RE: Coton v. TVX, Inc.
DATE: September 2, 2009
Background. Yesterday I met with Robert Augustus Burge, the chief executive
officer of TVX, Inc. He has retained us to represent his corporation in defending against
Florida state law claims filed by Lara Jade Coton, a young English photographer. Her
complaint alleges that our clients have misappropriated her likeness and portrayed her in a
false light. For more details about her claims, please refer to the Complaint recently served
on our client (posted on the TWEN website).
Ms. Coton is admittedly a very talented young photographer who resides and works
in the United Kingdom. About five years ago she took a photograph of herself seated in a
shadowy window and posted it on her Facebook profile page. (See Exhibit A, attached to the
complaint.) Since then she has developed her own internet website to market her
photography.
Our client’s employees downloaded Ms. Coton’s picture from her Facebook profile
page, believing that the photo was in the public domain. Nothing on the plaintiff’s Facebook
page prohibited viewers from using or downloading the photograph, and TVX employees did
not alter or edit the photo in any way. Our client believes that Ms. Coton should have known
her photo could be readily accessed on Facebook and downloaded by anyone with a
password. As you know, anyone can get on Facebook free of charge simply by registering
on the internet.
Mr. Burge does not dispute that the company used Coton’s self-portrait for the
packaging of a DVD under the title “Body Magic,” containing what they call “artistically
sensual” images. The company printed her photograph on the DVD itself and also on the
outside cover of the DVD case. (Please see Exhibits B and C, attached to the complaint.)
Her photo is not part of the video recording itself, but appears only on the disc label and the
DVD packaging. While our clients used her image without her express authorization, they
assumed they could do so because she voluntarily posted her photograph on Facebook. Her
complaint alleges not only misappropriation of her likeness, but also promotion of
pornography, which she believes casts her in a false light.
By the way, I have not viewed the DVD, but based on Mr. Burge’s interview I think
we can assume the footage is indeed pornographic in nature. Ms. Coton wants money
damages from our clients, including punitive damages. She also wants the court to issue an
injunction ordering our clients to stop using her image on the “Body Magic” DVD.
1

2. Assignment. With your help, we need to immediately assess the likelihood that the
plaintiff will prevail in federal district court on either of her claims. If she is likely to win,
we may want to consider settlement negotiations to avoid undue litigation expense for our
client. At this point, you may assume that the essential facts alleged in her complaint are not
in dispute. You may also assume that the federal district court in Florida has proper diversity
jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction over our client, which markets the DVD
nationwide.
Depending upon the outcome of your research, we anticipate arguing that the plaintiff
cannot prevail because she waived any right to privacy she may have had in the photo. After
all, she voluntarily posted her image on Facebook without setting any privacy constraints, so
any viewer could download the photo. We also plan to dispute her claim that our client’s use
of her photograph depicts her in a false light. Neither the photograph in question nor any
other image of her is displayed on the video contents of the DVD itself – only on the label
and the packaging.
Research Materials. The relevant Florida statute and several cases that appear to be
on point are cited below. Copies of these legal authorities are posted on the TWEN page.
Please limit your research to these materials. Do not look up any other legal authority
or background information, except you may consult a law dictionary to ensure you
understand any unfamiliar terms.
While not necessary, you may consult the websites identified in the complaint to
learn more background information on the plaintiff and her website photography business.
However, if you run into any discrepancies, you must assume that the facts are as stated in
the complaint and in this memo. You may not look up any other legal authorities, either in
print or online, and you may not investigate any other facts regarding the plaintiff or her
claims.
(1) Alameida v. Amazon.com, Inc., 456 F.3d 1516 (11th Cir. 2006).
(2) Cason v. Baskin, 20 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1945).
(3) Cummings v. Sony Music, 2003 WL 2271189 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2003).
(4) Gill v. Hearst Publg. Co., 253 P.2d 441 (Cal. 1953).
(5) Kunz v. Allen, 172 P. 532 (Kan. 1918).
(6) Lane v. MRA Holdings, LLC, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (M.D. Fla. 2002).
(7) Tyne v. Time Warner Ent. Co., LP, 901 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2005).
(8) Valentine v. CBS, Inc., 698 F.3d 430 (11th Cir. 1983).
(9) Fla. Stat. § 540.08 (2008).
2

3. Memo Instructions. After carefully reviewing the attached legal authorities, please
write the Discussion section of an office memo addressing the appropriate issue or issues of
law. Please double-space your memo using 12-point Times New Roman font, and please
use at least one-inch margins on all four sides of the page. Include page numbers at the
bottom center of each page (except the first), and be sure to include your name and your
RWA section number (13 or 16) in your heading.
In preparing your office memo, you are expected and required to cite cases and
statutes consistent with the ALWD citation manual. You are also expected to demonstrate
your understanding of when you should cite legal authority to support a statement in your
memo. Finally, you must include accurate pinpoint citations to legal authority to support
your analysis.
Your completed memo should not exceed five (5) double-spaced pages. I will not
read past the fifth page. Your final memo is due in hardcopy on or before Wednesday,
September 30, at 5:00 p.m. Please turn in your hardcopy to my mailbox in the copy room
on the Fifth Floor, and then upload an identical electronic version to the TWEN Assignment
Drop Box.
Consultation. You may discuss the research materials and your legal analysis with
other students in RWA Sections 13 and 16 who are working on the same memo assignment.
However, you may not discuss the assignment or any of the research materials with
anyone else, including other law students, other professors, lawyers, parents, siblings,
roommates, or significant others.
Furthermore, you may not show your written work to anyone, including your
classmates. Writing, revising, editing, and proofreading of your memo must be done by
you and you alone. Any departure from these requirements, however minor in nature, will
be considered a violation of the Honor Code and will be treated accordingly. The only
exception is that you may show your written work to me, subject to the 48-hour rule
discussed in the syllabus.
Honor Code. Before you begin, I expect you to carefully review the Honor Code,
available at http://www.law.ualr.edu/academics/pdfs/honorcode.pdf. In particular, read
Section III defining infractions of the Code. If at any time you have any questions about
what is considered permissible conduct, please contact me immediately by telephone, in
person, or by email. It is always better to check in advance to avoid any appearance of
impropriety.
If anyone asks you for assistance—or offers you assistance—that would violate
these restrictions, please contact me immediately.
3