With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". identity.” Id. In contrast, the images of Catherine Bosley are not sufficiently altered to reflect a creative component which was added to the images of Bosley. This Court viewed the two video tapes in question, as well as the video clips placed on the “members only” portion of SexBrat.com. The images merely capture Plaintiff Bosley’s performance at the wet t-shirt contest and do not contain any editorial content. The substance of images were not accompanied by any dialog discussing Plaintiffs status as a former news anchor. The lack of artistic expression and significant editorial comments clearly distinguish this case from other cases where First Amendment protections have applied. See e.g., Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Assoc., 95 F.3d 959, 976 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). For example, the District of New Jersey, in

A: holding that documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or would have been created irrespective of litigation are not protected by the work product doctrine
B: holding that certain dual purpose documents created in response to the epa information request and consent order were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine as they were created because of potential litigation with the epa
C: holding that when a first  2255 motion succeeds in obtaining a sentence amendment a subsequent motion will be considered a first motion to the extent that it challenges a new or amended component of the sentence and a second motion to the extent that it challenges either a component of the original unamended sentence or the underlying conviction
D: holding that the first amendment protected trading cards which involved caricatures of major league baseball players and humorous commentary because the cards added a significant creative component of its own to the celebrity identity and created an entirely new product
D.