WPC+ n5vЅafg ^--B3ؼJZj;% .wb!|Gݽ0ɛwGNk c-`=(j߭=p ֔e =g/ S>8Z1de`E鱿S *t}Nh1c@#1'G1zXI$r>?| mJ7Nފ{v"Y"]ǞÑoPk{[Ӕ8%E r(7)+Y ]HA6ciꑉF.L9vWSL`|4%Y;#10Dl qi~uH2DK ɔB͇i_AT4Dd-mz_U @k`UY$8tYҼc!vO$KzAᖱi79Y8E;c) C YJWlT[Ili ApkbLRzuc#jU4N+ %y 0: U* U3> U@! UFa U. 1u 72J ^ | w 4   m N 1 72Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0c  0N 0J 0 z 0Vx" 0V 00 0N 0I 0AAA 06 0( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0n 1eT! 1e! 1" 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0& 0}' 0l( 0X)X) 1mA*A*A*A**h:+HP LaserJet 4250 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,%2A`Arial\  `&Times New Roman(9 Z(Times New Roman 7\  `.Times New Roman TUR $Calibri3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i);s *>8hared3|x U(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(;3$2#  0  .3  0     (O$www.ncbex2.org/catalog/<J+M :Outline002_1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (.3$ !USUS.,           7'USUS.,  _ XTXXX@ MULTISTATEPERFORMANCETEST#XTXXXT@#Ԁ(MPT) (.3$ !USUS.,  :q8Body Text 2    XXX?%2A`Arial?  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS   <G+M :Outline002_2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <D+M :Outline002_3 j  ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <A+M :Outline002_4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <>+M :Outline002_5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <;+M :Outline002_6 j  #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <8+M :Outline002_7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <5+M :Outline002_8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <2+M :Outline002_9 j   x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <J+M :Outline003_1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <G+M :Outline003_2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <D+M :Outline003_3 j  ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <A+M :Outline003_4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <>+M :Outline003_5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <;+M :Outline003_6 j  #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <8+M :Outline003_7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <5+M :Outline003_8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <2+M :Outline003_9 j   x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j 2>?@CDEF 35;AGMSY_11.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.HIJKLMNO 35;AGMSY_2A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<J+M :Outline001_1   2(4 4` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <G+M :Outline001_2   /% hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <D+M :Outline001_3 j 4 ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <A+M :Outline001_4   )< <hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <>+M :Outline001_5   &p x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <;+M :Outline001_6 j < #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <8+M :Outline001_7    DDp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <5+M :Outline001_8    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  TUVWXYZ[035;AGMSY_3A.A.i.1.a.i.1.a. 3)USUS.,  _  Page  1  ڀof  9   ^ 3)USUS.,  _Page  1  ڀof !USUS.,  _   XTXXX4Oa5V/Oa  JULY2009  MULTISTATEPERFORMANCETEST(MPT) #XTXXXTL# @ XTXXXT   #XTXXXT#XTXXXT     TheMPTQuestionadministeredbytheStateBoardofLawExaminersfortheJuly2009 ` barexaminationwas Jacksonv.#XTXXXTv#XTXXXTFranklinSportsGazette,Inc#XTXXXTb#XXXXT.#XTXXX#XTXXXT Tworepresentativegood L  answersselectedbytheBoardareincludedhere,beginningatpage2. 8    TheNationalConferenceofBarExaminers(NCBE)publishestheMPTQuestionandthe  `  pointsheetdescribingtheissuesandthediscussionexpectedinasuccessfulresponsetothe  L  MPTQuestion.The pointsheetisanalogoustotheBoardsAnalysispreparedbytheState  8  BoardofLawExaminersforeachoftheessayquestions. $    TheNCBEdoesnotpermittheBoardtopublishtheMPTQuestionorthe pointsheet   ontheBoardswebsite.However,theNCBEdoesoffertheMPTQuestionand pointsheetfor   saleonitswebsite.     Materialsforanunsuccessfulapplicant: Anapplicantwhowasunsuccessfulonthe \ July2009MarylandbarexaminationmayobtainacopyoftheMPTQuestion,hisorherMPT L answer,representativegoodanswersselectedbytheBoard,andthe pointsheetfortheJuly 8 2009MPTQuestionadministeredasacomponentoftheMarylandbarexamination.This $t materialisprovidedtoeachunsuccessfulapplicantwhorequests,inwriting,acopyofthe ` answersinaccordancewithinstructionsmailedwiththeresultsofthebarexamination.The L deadlineforanunsuccessfulapplicanttorequestthismaterialisJanuary5,2010. 8    Materialsforanyoneotherthananunsuccessfulapplicant :Anyoneelsemayobtain  theMPTQuestionandthe pointsheetonlybypurchasingthemattheNCBEOnlineStore.  Usethefollowinglinktoaccessthe NCBEOnlineStore :41 0O  5  www.ncbex2.org/catalog/6 0O   7 ! #XTXXXT#XTXXXT  t 6#XTXXXT # b  ab_  P!    f& 0 @ REPRESENTATIVEANSWER1  d   From:  Applicant  j To:  RobertBenson   Date:  July28,2009(#(#K(# 8  Re:  Jacksonv.FranklinSportsGazette,Inc.   Q2>?@CDEFG(03 "2"  X<( ` hp x X<  2s2  1  .3      RightofpublicityinFranklinunderCommonLawandRecentlyEnactedStatutory >  Law ?+ ` hp x X?.2s݌ M  Ќ X XX   f&  Priorto2008,commonlawgovernedtherightofpublicityinFranklin.Atcommonlaw, j  therewerefourelementstotherightofpublicitycauseofaction:(1)thedefendantsuseofthe V  plaintiffspersona,(2)appropriationoftheplaintiffspersonatothedefendantscommercialor B  otheradvantage,(3)lackofconsent,and(4)resultinginjury.AccordingtoCommitteeReport .  94176(herein, LegislativeHistory),FranklinslegislaturesgoalinadoptingFranklinStatute   Section62RightofPublicity(herein, Section62)wastocodifythecommonlawelements   withadditionalclarifications.Theseclarificationsfocusedontheextenttowhichtheindividual  mustbeidentifiableinthephotographyandtheexceptiontothestatutefornewsreporting z organizations.TheLegislativeHistoryindicatesthatcommonlawdecisionsshouldbecontinued f tobeconsideredgoodlawtotheextentthattheyareincompliancewiththelegislation. R Therefore,onmanyofthefactors,thejudicialdecisionswillbebindingonthecaseathand. >   UnderSection62(a,thecurrentelementsofthestatute(inrelevantpart)arethe(1) 4 knowinguseof(2)anothersphotograph(3)forpurposesofadvertisingorselling(4)without   suchpersonspriorconsent(5)willbeliablefordamagessustainedbythepersonasaresult.     2.Jacksonsclaimmaybeunsuccessfulforfailuretoestablishthatheisreadily !: identifiableinthephotograph.  "&  RHIJKLMNOP(00Q2>?@CDEFG/ /"H"  X<( ` hp x X<  $$He2  A  .3      StatutoryElementsofSection62He݌ $ Ќ X XX   ?+ ` hp x X?  Atthefirstreadingofthenewlyenactedstatute,itappearsthatJacksonsclaimwillbe v&  successful.Thememofrom_Sandi_ԀAllentoJerryWebster(withMr.Websters okandinitials) b'  establishesthattheSportsGazetteknowinglyusedthephotographofMr.Jacksonforadvertising N(! purposes.ThereisnosuggestionbyeitherMs.AllenorMr.Websterthattheybelievedthatthey :)" hadMr.Jacksonspriorconsenttousethephotograph.Therefore,itappearsthatMr.Jackson &*# willbeabletosatisfytheelementsofSection62. +$ 5V 5 5  ?+ ` hp x X?"H"  X<( ` hp x X<  H2  B  .3      DefinitionofReadilyIdentifiablefromCaseLawandApplicationtoJacksonv.Franklin d SportsGazetteH݌ P Ќ X XX   ?+ ` hp x X?  However,theLegislativeHistoryindicatesthatoneofthemotivationsforcodifyingthe ~ commonlawontherightofpublicitywasduetounclearmeaningofwhenanindividualis  j identifiablefromhisorherphotographicimage.ThereforetheLegislatureprovidedthataperson  V shallbedeemedidentifiableforaphotographwhenonewhoviesthephotographwiththenaked  B eyecanreasonablydeterminethatthepersondepictedinthephotographisthesamepersonwho  . iscomplainingofitsunauthorizeduse.Twocasesprovideguidanceastowhentheindividual ~  willidentifiablebythenakedeye.Althoughthesecasesweredecidedpriortotherecent j legislation,theywillcontinuetobebindingtotheextentthattheyareconsistentwiththenewly V  provideddefinitions. B    In2001theFranklinSupremeCourtinHoltv._JuicyCo_.statedthatwhetherornotthe p  publiccouldidentifytheindividualinacommercialastheindividualchallengingtheuseofhis \  imagewasaquestionforthetrieroffact.AlthoughtheCourtremandedHolttothelowercourt H  forsuchafactualdetermination,thereappearstobemorereasoninthatcasetosuggestthatthe 4 individualinquestionsimagewasbeingusedthaninthecaseathand.InHolt,theplaintiff   woreclothingthatwasuniqueinbothcoloranddesigntotheplaintiffAlthoughthedefendant p  hadremovedsomepatcheson_thesuit_,andtheplaintiffsnameandbibnumber,theCourtheld \ thatthetrieroffactcouldfindthecoloranddesignoftheoutfittobesufficientforthepublicto H identifytheplaintiff.Thus,solongasMr.Jacksonisabletoprovidesufficientevidencethata 4 trieroffactcouldfindthathewasclearlyidentifiableinthephotograph,thematterwillbe   decidedbythejury.However,giventhefacts,itdoesnotseemlikelythatMr.Jacksonwillbe   abletoprovidesuchsufficientevidencebasedonthelimitedviewofhisbodyanduniform,as  discussedbelow.    TheFranklinCourtofAppealsprovidedacontrasttoHoltin2003inBrantv.Franklin v Diamond.InthatcasetheCourtdirectedtheDistrictCourttodismisstheclaimforfailureto b stateacauseofaction.Althoughthedefendantadmittedtousingtheplaintiffsimage,the N  plaintiffwasunabletoestablishthattheimagecontainedsufficientidentifyingcharacteristicsfor :! thejurytofindthatthepubliccouldconcludethatitwasclearlyapictureoftheplaintiff,as &" opposedtoanotherathleteinthecompetition.Inthephotographatissue,theplaintiffwasonly # seenfromthewaistdownandwaswearingauniformthatwasidenticaltoallotherparticipants. # TheCourtnotedthattheplaintiffdidnothaveanydistinguishingfeaturesfromthewaistdown. $ Therefore,thecasewasdismissed. %r    Mr.Jacksonsclaimastothepublicsabilitytoidentifyhiminthephotographusedby h'!! theSportsGazetteappearstofallinbetweenthetwocasesdiscussedabove.Asinbothearlier T(!" cases,M.Jacksonsfacecouldnotbeseenand,asinBrant,onlyasmallportionofMr. @)"# Jacksonsbodyasvisibleinthephotograph.Additionally,althoughMr.Jacksonwasnot ,*#$ wearingthesameuniformasallotherparticipantsintheevent,hewaswearingthesameuniform +$% asallofhisteammatesandhisuniformdidnotdisplayhisname.Finally,onlythesecond 0in ,%& 4Oa 4 4  Mr.Jacksonsnumbercanbeseen.Althoughthe 00numberisunique,therewerethreeother d playersatthetimethephotographwastakenandfiveotherplayerstodaywhocouldhavebeen P inthephotoinsteadofMr.Jackson.Additionally,thesameuniformshavebeenwornfor25 < years,increasingthenumberofpotentialplayerswhocouldhavebeenthesubjectofthe (  photograph.   ЀC.  Conclusion:Mr.Jacksonisnotclearlyidentifiable  B ?+ ` hp x X?  Thus,Mr.Jacksonisnotasclearlyidentifiablefromthephotographastheplaintiffwasin 8  Holt,yetmaybeslightlymoreidentifiablethantheplaintiffwasinBrant.TheSportsGazette $ maynotbeabletosuccessfullymovefordismissal.Yet,suchamotionwouldbetakeningood  faithandhasareasonablechanceofsuccess.   p      $w XX$ ' 3.AffirmativeDefense:NewsworthinessExceptionmayprovideDefenseforSports *  Gazette . z   ' A.CaseLawon Endorsement    '   IfMr.Jacksonisabletosufficientlyestablishthatheisreadilyidentifiabletothepublic >  inthephotograph,thentheSportsGazettemaybeabletousetheaffirmativedefense.The * secondmajorconcernoftheFranklinLegislaturethatleadtotheadoptionofSection6wasthatit z wasunclearwhennewsreportingorganizationscouldbeheldliableunderthecommonlawcause f ofaction.IntheLegislativeHistory,thecommitteemembersstressedthatthestatutewasnot R intendedtointerferewiththerightoffreedomofthepressineithertheFranklinConstitutionor > theFirstAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.Therefore,thelegislatureincluded * Section62(d)asanaffirmativedefensefornews,publicaffairs,sportsbroadcastingand  accounts,andpoliticalcampaignstousephotographsorlikenesseswithoutconsent.Againthe  FranklinCourtofAppealsdecidedacase,Millerv._FSM_,undercommonlawin1988.InMiller,  thecourtupheldtheDistrictCourtsrefusaltodismissacaseunderasimilarexceptionat v commonlaw.InMiller,thedefendant,asportsmagazine,usedtheimageoftheplaintiff,a b professionalathlete,inanadvertisementaimedatincreasingsubscriptions.Clearly,thatfact  N patternisverysimilartothecaseathand.Thecaseallowedanexemptionfromtheviolationofa !: rightofpublicityinnewsmediaadvertisementsthatclearlylinkthephotographtothequality "& andcontentofthemagazineandarenotanimpliedendorsementofthepublicationbythe v# individualphotographed.InMiller,theCourtfoundthattherewasnoexplicittiebetweenthe b$ individualsphotographandthesolicitationforsubscriptions(suchasfeaturingtheplaintiffs N% name)and,therefore,therewasnoimpliedendorsement.Accordingly,theCourtdismissedthe :& case.      h      p      &'   (80RHIJKLMNOP ' B.EndorsementinJacksonv.FranklinSportsGazette (T"!  '   BecausetheLegislaturehasnowprovidedanexplicitaffirmativedefenseforthe J*#" mediasuseofanindividualsimagethatdoesnotincludethisendorsementconnection,itisnot 6+$# possibletopredicthowtheCourtwillrule.Toevenreachthisaffirmativedefense,theCourt ",%$ /Oa / /  willhavefoundthatthereissufficientevidenceforthepublictoidentifyMr.Jacksonfromthe d photograph(asdiscussedinSectionI).Therefore,basedonprecedent,theCourtmayconsider P whethertheuseofMr.Jacksonsphotographsuggeststhatheisendorsingsubscriptionstothe < newspaperortheuseofthephotographismerelyevidenceofthestories,coverage,and (  photographsthatareprovidedinthenewspaper.IftheCourtconsidersthisissueitislikelythat   theywillfindthatthelanguageoftheadvertisementissufficienttoestablishthatthephotograph   isnotanendorsementbyMr.Jackson.ThememofromMs.Allensuggeststhatthephotowas   beingusedto conveytheexcitement,action,andthekindofsportscoverage[thenewspaper]  t _stand[s_]for.Additionally,thelanguageintheadfocusesonthestories,coverage,and  ` photographsthatareprovidedinthenewspaper.Therefore,iftheCourtconsidersaclaimbyMr. L  Jacksonthatthephotoismeanttoserveashisendorsementforthenewspaper,theclaimwill 8  probablyfail. $  -r Xw X- r C.ExclusionofMediaAdvertisementfromAffirmativeDefense    r   However,theCourtmaynotevenconsidersuchaclaim.Instead,underthenewstatute H  theCourtcouldreasonablyinterpretittoexcludemediaadvertisementsfromtheaffirmative 4 defense.TheCourtwouldreasonthatthestatutedoesnotprovideforanadvertisingexception   and,asthegoalofthestatuteistocreatecertaintyastowhenaFirstAmendmentexception p  exists,thereisnoexceptionunlessexplicitlyprovided.IftheCourttakessuchanapproach,any \ affirmativedefensebytheSportsGazettewillfail. H  r D.Conclusion:AffirmativeDefensemayormaynotbeallowed v  r   Therefore,thesuccessfulnessorfailureoftheaffirmativedefenseforSportsGazette l dependsonwhetherornottheCourtconsidersaFirstAmendmentexceptionatalland,further, X whethertheCourtconsiderstheuseofthephotographtobeanendorsementofthenewspaperby D Mr.Jackson. 0   f&XTXXXT  ^ REPRESENTATIVEANSWER2  d f&#XTXXXTL#  XTXXXT#XTXXXTL#XTXXXTFrom:  Applicant  G To: r RobertBenson =  Date:  July28,2009  k Re: r Jacksonv.FranklinSportsGazette,Inc. a #XTXXXTL#XTXXXT Q2>?@CDEFG(08 "2"  XE( ` hp x r XE    2N2  1  .3      #XTXXXT N#XTXXXTRightofpublicityinFranklinunderCommonLawandRecentlyEnactedStatutory   Law.2N]O݌ {  Ќ X'r XX'    r #XTXXXTO#H+ ` hp x r XHXTXXXTPriorto2008,commonlawgovernedtherightofpublicityinFranklin.Atcommonlaw, q  therewerefourelementstotherightofpublicitycauseofaction:(1)thedefendantsuseofthe ]  plaintiffspersona,(2)appropriationoftheplaintiffspersonatothedefendantscommercialor I  otheradvantage,(3)lackofconsent,and(4)resultinginjury.AccordingtoCommitteeReport 5  94176(herein, LegislativeHistory),FranklinslegislaturesgoalinadoptingFranklinStatute !  Section62RightofPublicity(herein, Section62)wastocodifythecommonlawelements    withadditionalclarifications.Theseclarificationsfocusedontheextenttowhichtheindividual  mustbeidentifiableinthephotographyandtheexceptiontothestatutefornewsreporting  organizations.TheLegislativeHistoryindicatesthatcommonlawdecisionsshouldbecontinued m tobeconsideredgoodlawtotheextentthattheyareincompliancewiththelegislation. Y Therefore,onmanyofthefactors,thejudicialdecisionswillbebindingonthecaseathand. E #XTXXXT\Q#XTXXXT  UnderSection62(a,thecurrentelementsofthestatute(inrelevantpart)arethe(1) ; knowinguseof(2)anothersphotograph(3)forpurposesofadvertisingorselling(4)without ' suchpersonspriorconsent(5)willbeliablefordamagessustainedbythepersonasaresult.  #XTXXXTV#XTXXXT;  ,f& XTXXXT  f&;wX  2.Jacksonsclaimmaybeunsuccessfulforfailuretoestablishthatheisreadily  A identifiableinthephotograph.;wXY݌ !- Ќ    ,XTXXXT   RHIJKLMNOP(00Q2>?@CDEFG/ /"H"  X<( ` hp x X<  HZ2  A  .3      #XTXXXTXX#XTXXXTStatutoryElementsofSection62HZ{[݌ ## Ќ X XX     #XTXXXT[#XTXXXTԀAtthefirstreadingofthenewlyenactedstatute,itappearsthatJacksonsclaimwillbe $Q successful.Thememofrom_Sandi_ԀAllentoJerryWebster(withMr.Websters okandinitials) %= establishesthattheSportsGazetteknowinglyusedthephotographofMr.Jacksonforadvertising &)  purposes.ThereisnosuggestionbyeitherMs.AllenorMr.Websterthattheybelievedthatthey y'! hadMr.Jacksonspriorconsenttousethephotograph.Therefore,itappearsthatMr.Jackson e(" willbeabletosatisfytheelementsofSection62. Q)" #XTXXXT\#?+ ` hp x X?"H"  X<( ` hp x X<  H`2  B  .3      XTXXXTDefinitionofReadilyIdentifiablefromCaseLawandApplicationtoJacksonv.Franklin *$ SportsGazetteH``݌ +k%  Ќ X XX   _  #XTXXXT`#XTXXXTHowever,theLegislativeHistoryindicatesthatoneofthemotivationsforcodifyingthe d commonlawontherightofpublicitywasduetounclearmeaningofwhenanindividualis P identifiablefromhisorherphotographicimage.ThereforetheLegislatureprovidedthataperson < shallbedeemedidentifiableforaphotographwhenonewhoviesthephotographwiththenaked (  eyecanreasonablydeterminethatthepersondepictedinthephotographisthesamepersonwho   iscomplainingofitsunauthorizeduse.Twocasesprovideguidanceastowhentheindividual   willidentifiablebythenakedeye.Althoughthesecasesweredecidedpriortotherecent   legislation,theywillcontinuetobebindingtotheextentthattheyareconsistentwiththenewly  t provideddefinitions.  `   #XTXXXT decidedbythejury.However,giventhefacts,itdoesnotseemlikelythatMr.Jacksonwillbe * abletoprovidesuchsufficientevidencebasedonthelimitedviewofhisbodyanduniform,as z discussedbelow. f #XTXXXTi#XTXXXT  #XTXXXTm#XTXXXTTheFranklinCourtofAppealsprovidedacontrastto#XTXXXT n#XTXXXTHolt#XTXXXTn#XTXXXTԀin2003in#XTXXXTn#XTXXXTBrantv.Franklin  Diamond#XTXXXTo#XTXXXT.InthatcasetheCourtdirectedtheDistrictCourttodismisstheclaimforfailureto  stateacauseofaction.Althoughthedefendantadmittedtousingtheplaintiffsimage,the l plaintiffwasunabletoestablishthattheimagecontainedsufficientidentifyingcharacteristicsfor X thejurytofindthatthepubliccouldconcludethatitwasclearlyapictureoftheplaintiff,as D opposedtoanotherathleteinthecompetition.Inthephotographatissue,theplaintiffwasonly  0 seenfromthewaistdownandwaswearingauniformthatwasidenticaltoallotherparticipants. ! TheCourtnotedthattheplaintiffdidnothaveanydistinguishingfeaturesfromthewaistdown. l" Therefore,thecasewasdismissed. X# #XTXXXTo#  Mr.Jacksonsclaimastothepublicsabilitytoidentifyhiminthephotographusedby $ theSportsGazetteappearstofallinbetweenthetwocasesdiscussedabove.Asinbothearlier %r  cases,M.Jacksonsfacecouldnotbeseenand,asinXTXXXTBrant#XTXXXTqt#XTXXXT,onlyasmallportionofMr. &^ ! Jacksonsbodyasvisibleinthephotograph.Additionally,althoughMr.Jacksonwasnot 'J!" wearingthesameuniformasallotherparticipantsintheevent,hewaswearingthesameuniform (6"# asallofhisteammatesandhisuniformdidnotdisplayhisname.Finally,onlythesecond 0in )"#$ Mr.Jacksonsnumbercanbeseen.Althoughthe 00numberisunique,therewerethreeother r*$% playersatthetimethephotographwastakenandfiveotherplayerstodaywhocouldhavebeen ^+$& inthephotoinsteadofMr.Jackson.Additionally,thesameuniformshavebeenwornfor25 d years,increasingthenumberofpotentialplayerswhocouldhavebeenthesubjectofthe P photograph. < #XTXXXTt#ԀC.Conclusion:Mr.Jacksonisnotclearlyidentifiable  j   Thus,Mr.Jacksonisnotasclearlyidentifiablefromthephotographastheplaintiffwasin `  XTXXXTHolt#XTXXXTRy#XTXXXT,yetmaybeslightlymoreidentifiablethantheplaintiffwasin#XTXXXTy#XTXXXTBrant#XTXXXT"z#XTXXXT.TheSportsGazette L  maynotbeabletosuccessfullymovefordismissal.Yet,suchamotionwouldbetakeningood 8  faithandhasareasonablechanceofsuccess. $ #XTXXXTlz#XTXXXT#XTXXXT{#  3.AffirmativeDefense:NewsworthinessExceptionmayprovideDefenseforSports H  Gazette . 4   ]TUVWXYZ[(00RHIJKLMNOP/ /?+ ` hp x X?  CaseLawon Endorsement f    IfMr.Jacksonisabletosufficientlyestablishthatheisreadilyidentifiabletothepublic \  inthephotograph,thentheSportsGazettemaybeabletousetheaffirmativedefense.The H  secondmajorconcernoftheFranklinLegislaturethatleadtotheadoptionofSection6wasthatit 4 wasunclearwhennewsreportingorganizationscouldbeheldliableunderthecommonlawcause   ofaction.IntheLegislativeHistory,thecommitteemembersstressedthatthestatutewasnot   intendedtointerferewiththerightoffreedomofthepressineithertheFranklinConstitutionor  theFirstAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.Therefore,thelegislatureincluded  Section62(d)asanaffirmativedefensefornews,publicaffairs,sportsbroadcastingand l accounts,andpoliticalcampaignstousephotographsorlikenesseswithoutconsent.Againthe X FranklinCourtofAppealsdecidedacase,XTXXXT Millerv.FSM#XTXXXTՁ#XTXXXT,undercommonlawin1988.In D #XTXXXT*#XTXXXTMiller#XTXXXT#XTXXXT,thecourtupheldtheDistrictCourtsrefusaltodismissacaseunderasimilar 4 exceptionatcommonlaw . In#XTXXXT#XTXXXTMiller #XTXXXT#,thedefendant,asportsmagazine,usedtheimageofthe   plaintiff,aprofessionalathlete,inanadvertisementaimedatincreasingsubscriptions.Clearly, t  thatfactpatternisverysimilartothecaseathand.Thecaseallowedanexemptionfromthe `! violationofarightofpublicityinnewsmediaadvertisementsthatclearlylinkthephotographto L" thequalityandcontentofthemagazineandarenotanimpliedendorsementofthepublicationby 8# theindividualphotographed.InMiller,theCourtfoundthattherewasnoexplicittiebetweenthe $$ individualsphotographandthesolicitationforsubscriptions(suchasfeaturingtheplaintiffs % name)and,therefore,therewasnoimpliedendorsement.Accordingly,theCourtdismissedthe % case. &  ! !  EndorsementinJacksonv.FranklinSportsGazette z("    BecausetheLegislaturehasnowprovidedanexplicitaffirmativedefenseforthemedias  *#! useofanindividualsimagethatdoesnotincludethisendorsementconnection,itisnotpossible *$" topredicthowtheCourtwillrule.Toevenreachthisaffirmativedefense,theCourtwill_have +%# foundthatthereissufficientevidenceforthepublictoidentifyMr.Jacksonfromthephotograph d (asdiscussedinSectionI).Therefore,basedonprecedent,theCourtmayconsiderwhetherthe P useofMr.Jacksonsphotographsuggeststhatheisendorsingsubscriptionstothenewspaperor < theuseofthephotographismerelyevidenceofthestories,coverage,andphotographsthatare (  providedinthenewspaper.IftheCourtconsidersthisissueitislikelythattheywillfindthatthe   languageoftheadvertisementissufficienttoestablishthatthephotographisnotanendorsement   byMr.Jackson.ThememofromMs.Allensuggeststhatthephotowasbeingusedto convey   theexcitement,action,andthekindofsportscoverage[thenewspaper]_stand[s_]for.  t Additionally,thelanguageintheadfocusesonthestories,coverage,andphotographsthatare  ` providedinthenewspaper.Therefore,iftheCourtconsidersaclaimbyMr.Jacksonthatthe L  photoismeanttoserveashisendorsementforthenewspaper,theclaimwillprobablyfail. 8  XTXXXT  ExclusionofMediaAdvertisementfromAffirmativeDefense#XTXXXT#XTXXXT .    However,theCourtmaynotevenconsidersuchaclaim.Instead,underthenewstatute \  theCourtcouldreasonablyinterpretittoexcludemediaadvertisementsfromtheaffirmative H  defense.TheCourtwouldreasonthatthestatutedoesnotprovideforan#XTXXXTH#XTXXXTadvertising#XTXXXTԐ#Ԁexception 4 and,asthegoalofthestatuteistocreatecertaintyastowhenaFirstAmendmentexception   exists,thereisnoexceptionunlessexplicitlyprovided.IftheCourttakessuchanapproach,any p  affirmativedefensebytheSportsGazettewillfail. \ ! ! S(Eh80 ]TUVWXYZ[",3"   XƁXXXT?+ ` hp x X?  ,32Eh  1  .3  0 `   #XTXX XƁF#XTXXXTConclusion:AffirmativeDefensemayormaynotbeallowed,3݌` (#` (# Ќ  #XTXXXT,#XTXXXT  Therefore,thesuccessfulnessorfailureoftheaffirmativedefenseforSportsGazette $ dependsonwhetherornottheCourtconsidersaFirstAmendmentexceptionatalland,further, t whethertheCourtconsiderstheuseofthephotographtobeanendorsementofthenewspaperby ` Mr.Jackson. L   #XTXXXT#