## Facts

- Bret Michaels and Pamela Anderson Lee recorded an original, private videotape depicting their sexual activity in a nonpublic setting.
- They asserted the tape was made for personal use, was never authorized for public release, and was wrongfully obtained by others.
- Internet Entertainment Group, Inc. (IEG) claimed it had acquired the tape and the rights necessary to publish it online.
- Michaels objected and warned IEG that any publication would infringe copyright and violate privacy and publicity rights.
- IEG planned to commercially distribute the tape on the internet and to market it using plaintiffs’ names and images.
- The court previously issued a temporary restraining order stopping dissemination; this proceeding addressed a preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success and irreparable harm on their copyright claim sufficient for preliminary injunctive relief.
2. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success and irreparable harm on California right of publicity claims to bar IEG’s advertising and marketing uses of their identities.
3. Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success and irreparable harm on invasion-of-privacy theories to bar publication and distribution of the tape.
4. Whether IEG’s First Amendment and “newsworthiness” defenses defeated or limited injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction against IEG.
- The court enjoined IEG from distributing, publishing, copying, or otherwise disseminating the tape.
- The court enjoined IEG from using plaintiffs’ names, likenesses, or identities to advertise, sell, market, or solicit purchases of goods or services.
- The court required a $50,000 bond as security (with Anderson responsible for half).

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction may issue when the movant shows a likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm, with consideration of hardships and the public interest.
- Unauthorized copying and planned internet distribution of an original audiovisual work supports a strong showing of likely copyright infringement where no license or transfer is shown.
- Irreparable harm is especially likely where intimate content would be effectively impossible to retract once widely disseminated online.
- California publicity rights prohibit commercial use of a person’s identity to market goods or services without consent, and such misuse can justify injunctive relief.
- Publicity and privacy protections are not displaced merely because the subjects are public figures; the First Amendment does not immunize commercial exploitation of misappropriated, highly private material where publication is not necessary to report matters of legitimate public concern.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily barred IEG from publishing or marketing a private sex tape and from using plaintiffs’ identities in related promotions, concluding plaintiffs were likely to succeed on copyright, privacy, and publicity claims and that online dissemination would cause irreparable harm not outweighed by IEG’s asserted First Amendment defenses.


Michaels v. Internet Ent. Grp., Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (C.D. Cal. 1998)