Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (emphasis added) (citing Jansen v. Hilo Packing Co., 202 Misc. 900, 118 N.Y.S.2d 162 (S.Ct.1952)); (“Where defendant inserted a picture of a motion picture actress using a certain camera, with an inscription beneath it giving her name, in a manual for the use of such camera, she was permitted a recovery.”) (emphasis added) (citing Selsman v. Universal Photo Books, Inc., 18 A.D.2d 151, 238 N.Y.S.2d 686 (App.Div.1963)). To the extent that Palmer involved the unauthorized use of professional golfers’ names and playing records in the defendant’s board games, the court acknowledges that Palmer has certain factual similarities to the matter under consideration, but with the critical exception that the defendant in Palmer used golfers’ pictures; ther s’ Ass’n, 95 F.3d 959, 968 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) ; Toney v. L’Oreal USA 406 F.3d 905, 910 (7th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trading drugs for a firearm constituted use under  924c1a (B) holding that the right of publicity is descendible (C) holding that the defendants use of players likenesses in parody trading cards violated the right of publicity (D) holding that the defendants use of a models likeness in connection with the packaging and promotion of its hair care product violated the right of publicity (E) holding that a change of venue was not warranted due to publicity surrounding an unrelated murder with common features because the defendant failed to establish any specific prejudice against him as a result of the publicity
Output (English): holding that a change of venue was not warranted due to publicity surrounding an unrelated murder with common features because the defendant failed to establish any specific prejudice against him as a result of the publicity