Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): fundraising service. Id. at 1110-11. The footage of the plaintiff constituted only six seconds of the entire eight minute video. Id. While the court noted the duration of the use was relatively short in relation to the rest of the publication, the court found that the use was “crucial” to the defendant’s advertisement because without it, the video would not have been as attractive to the target audience and because the plaintiffs hole-in-one was not fungible to that of any ot ur-second facial appearance of unidentified and unnamed plaintiff in a street scene, shot from a moving vehicle in low light, during the opening credits of a movie was incidental use because it contributed nothing to the movie’s storyline); Ladany v. William Morrow & Co., 465 F.Supp. 870, 881 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (<HOLDING>). In this case, under the circumstances in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the premise underlying the action was that plaintiff was deceived by the words and actions of an employer the subject of the deception was pension benefits but that was only incidental and not essential to the cause of action (B) holding that incidental use doctrine applied when plaintiff was one of 101 characters in a book discussing in detail the olympic massacre in munich and the book referred to plaintiff only when discussing one out of the many aspects of the tragedy (C) holding the doctrine applied in a case of mistake (D) holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk (E) holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work
Output (English): holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work