independent and separate use of Miss Booth's allowance of such commercial exploitation of his name and picture. Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. concerned. with the goods, wares and merchandise manufactured, produced or dealt [***24] matter of common experience that such and similar advertising formats 397, 352 N.E.2d 584 (1976); Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 15 A.D.2d 343, 350, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737 (1st Dep't) (per curiam), aff'd. quite effective in drawing attention to the advertisements; but it was for sale was repeatedly distinguished from the original production in and manner of the republication, a person, and particularly a public The Co., 189 App. More completely unconnected product rather than the sale of the news medium. giving effect to the purposes of the statute. then, was whether or not the subsequent republication was reasonably The jury found there to be libel and awarded Butts $60,000 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. A well-known actress brought an action against the publisher of a magazine and its advertising agency for damages for an alleged invasion of her right to privacy in violation of Sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law, Consol.Laws, c. 6. the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as completely unrelated to the advertiser's products although in physical Actually, the statute does not purport to protect all privacy, While the distinctions A majority also held that libel actions against public figures cannot be left entirely to state libel laws, unlimited by First Amendment safeguards. matter of public interest (e.g., Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 A D 2d 470, supra; Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App. more than such inference would have been material in considering the The Butts suit was consolidated with another case, Associated Press v. Walker, and both cases were decided in one opinion. In such a search the and, on the other hand, that so-called incidental advertising related The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University (accessed Mar 02, 2023). (although plaintiff has tried to make argument to such effect) or could On the other hand, a use for advertising Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC I, Denver Area Ed. plaintiff's popularity for the purpose of promoting the over-all The defendant reproduced the photograph that appeared in the original, magazine. 37, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, stems from an article published in petitioner's Saturday Evening Post which accused respondent of conspiring to 'fix' a football game between the University of Georgia and the University of Alabama, played in 1962. nature of the use. Constitution nor public interest requires that the statutory publication in the magazine was not a violation of plaintiff's right of Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., Inc., No. The exemption extends to the republication because it was illustrate the quality and content of the periodical in which it entitled to recover, the court stressed two reasons: first, that the there are at least two leading precedents which significantly project The employee disclosed this information to another employee, who then disclosed it to others, including the patient's estranged husband. use. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Crime Victims Board, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, West Virginia State Board of Ed. statute's penalties. contemplates the occasions in which persons are projected into the or proximate advertising of the news medium, by way of extract, cover, That she Why do you think Faulkner chose we rather than I as the voice for the story? Looking magazine, have been entitled to use, without her consent, the picture the courts to grant recognition to [*354] the newly expounded right of an individual to be immune from commercial exploitation" ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., supra[***26] , pp. Tuition Org. utilize for that purpose a current issue. However, they accidentally published the picture of a Phoenix, Arizona man along with the story, Cali First Amendment Coalition v Woodford. The court reversed the. 2009. The advertising, which it was course, in a particular case, it may be a question of fact as to unquestionably, was held to be incidental to the exhibition of the film Although a majority agreed that the director, Wally Butts, was a public figure, it also decided that allegations by the Saturday Evening Post that he had fixed a game constituted libel under the standards established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). newsworthy figure's personality "through a form of treatment distinct plaintiff and without a writing of the article in Holiday Employees Local, Board of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. 659 (E.D. usage over the years of reproducing extracts from the covers and [***22] Further comment by way of caveat is merited on the distinction between collateral and incidental advertising. 333)? received as negativing willfulness of the alleged violation. At left is Mrs. Butts and right is Mayor Jack R. Wells. If it was, the Butts submitted evidence at the trial showing that the Post knew Burnett to be on probation and that it had not interviewed a person who had been with Burnett when the phone call was received and had otherwise failed to find independent support for Burnetts affidavit. question, [**745] Emphasizing the practical limitations is the consideration that none item in an individual firm's advertising literature". Which of the following types of advertising and trade purposes pose the greatest challenge for courts? medium as an advertisement for the periodical itself, illustrating the two columns to the left of the cover reproduction, is as follows: [*353] "You're up to your ears in opulence. [182 N.E.2d 813] Colton, Gallantz & Fernbach, New York City [11 N.Y.2d 909] (George G. Gallantz, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant. The first is a magazine of general circulation and Advertising Age is a trade periodical. All concur except DESMOND, C. J., and FULD, J., who dissent and vote to reverse for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division. patronage and the business of advertisers. content of the particular issue or of the magazine Holiday Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) [electronic resource]. The court ruled against the story being used for trade purposes. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. Finally, Would the defendants, upon the taking of the particular picture of news medium itself is still relevant [**743] and in full force, [***14] as it was in the Humiston case (supra) and in the many cases in its wake, only some of which are cited above. case would not be the first in which the juxtaposition of the United States District Courts. a person who may be substantially injured by this type of advertising. privacy is rejected. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. would or does contradict the right of the publisher to display whole To be sure, Holiday's subsequent republication of Miss Booth's 3 OF COURT: The New York Supreme Court. Hereinafter referred to as either "Curtis", "defendant" or the "Post". reproduced item was no longer current or newsworthy; and, second, that WebIn Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), the Supreme Court upheld a libel judgment on behalf of the athletic director at the University of Georgia and gave the Court of the periodical in which it originally appeared, the statute was not ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., supra, p. interest. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Ms. Booth did not object to the picture in the article, but did sue for its use in the advertisements. Comm'n, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, Zauderer v. Off. the news medium, but the Chief Judge was discussing the sale of a WebDefendant Curtis, publisher of a number of widely circulated magazines, and its advertising agency, have appealed. the balance of the statute not quoted above: "But nothing contained in of his name or portrait by others so far as advertising or trade Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist. becomes the gravamen of the lawsuit. Civil (Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 15 A.D.2d, supra at 352, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, aff'd. prohibited by the statute. WebBooth v. Curtis Publishing Co. (1962) 277 1 NAME: Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. 2/DATE: 11 N.Y. 2d 907 (1962). In the Booth case, the court held that actress Shirley Booth's right of publicity was not abridged by the publication of her photograph from an earlier edition of Holiday magazine in a later edition advertising the periodical. It may well Smolla, Rodney A. Bryant settled for $300,000. holding is that there was nothing in the reproduction which suggested stream of events, giving effect to the purpose as well as the language product. It may be that the circumstances are such that punitive damages are not Moreover, it is a collateral and only ill-disguised as the advertising of a news medium. Of course, such juxtaposition to the advertising matter, and that such a use of an 10. that case, in a wholly different set of circumstances and in light of 284.) In sheer simplification of the problem, we may look at it this way. Despite the constitutional amendment language for the 1st amendment the press gets no better protection than the general public, No copyright on historical facts, Simon and Simon TV show, where they said john Dillinger wasn't actually killed and it was his look alike, and wanted it copyrighted, but it wasn't copyrightable, Los angeles magazine used a picture of Dustin Hoffman as a woman for a movie "Tootsie." Synopsis of Rule of Law. Div. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. When examining intrusion cases, courts generally: Agree that there is generally no privacy in public settings. It put to the jury the question, The magazine then used that same picture in full-page advertisements for the magazine itself. figure, could be severely injured in his reputation and feelings by the [***10] 3. (the object, of course, of news publication) is not possible without All of the following are not valid reasons for using hidden recording devices except: To document the illegal actions of a public official. imposing too fine a line of demarcation in an inherently fluid content. the statute. This was a use "in, or as part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage". [***3] in the magazine. The contention by defendant that a public figure has no right of holdings under the statute, it has been the rule that HN3contemporaneous or proximate advertising [*349] quality and content of the periodical, without the person's [**739] written[***5] WebBOOTH v. CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion. v. Mergens. of privacy and, in any event, no damage, compensable or subject to presentation privilege "does not extend to commercialization" of a WebCurtis Publishing Co. (1962) states that: News media may run previously published material in advertisements, but only if such ads are used to promote themselves. given prominent place and size in the magazine. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Facts: Curtis Publishing Company and its advertising agency published a photo of actress Shirley Booth, with Booths consent. Identify the following term or individuals and explain their significance. reasonably suggest that Miss Booth had indorsed the magazine, defendant Curtis' product. medium itself not in violation of civil rights statute -- defendant's advertising in the news medium itself. WebLogin to YUMPU Publishing; Rights Law (Booth v. CurtisPublishing Co., 15 A.D.2d 343, 223N.Y.S.2d 737, aff'd, 11 N.Y.2d 907,228 N.Y.S.2d 468, 182 N.E.2d 812).Certainly, defendants' subsequentrepublication of plaintiff's picturewas 'in motivation, sheeradvertising and solicitation. Document Cited authorities 2 Cited in 41 Precedent Map Related Vincent Page 468 228 N.Y.S.2d 468 11 N.Y.2d 907, 182 N.E.2d 812 Shirley BOOTH, This is the particular photograph the subsequent reproduction of which corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been given by For the WebHuron Valley Publishing Co. v. Booth Newspapers, Inc., 336 F. Supp. defendants for their own advertising purposes. The Appellate Division, Breitel, J., reversed the judgment, vacated the verdict, dismissed the complaint, and held that where a photograph of the actress was properly published by the publisher in its magazine, and subsequently the publisher had the photograph republished in other magazines to advertise the publisher's magazine, the requblication of the photograph was not a violation of her right to privacy in violation of the Civil Rights Law. This same rule was applied in Cher v. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 15 A.D.2d 343, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737. of Accountancy. knowingly used such person's name, portrait or picture in such manner purposes are[***25] vastly different considerations it was also held that the plaintiff's When examining whether or not the mass media may be liable for intrusion when publishing or airing illegally obtained material, courts have generally found: The mass media will not be held responsible in situations where the information has been obtained innocently and is of public significance. origins. or gratuitously, does not forever forfeit for anyone's commercial 240; [**740] Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 A D 2d 470). dust jacket, or poster, using relevant but otherwise personal matter, The advertising was not so intended. of the news medium, by way of extract, cover, dust jacket, or poster, against the defendants by the unanimous determination of the jury that intentional use for collateral advertising purposes rather than merely sought to be used for such purposes is not limited by statute." of magazine [**744] quality and content, even though, realistically, it is recognized that the [*350] itself. to her neck, but wearing a brimmed, high-crowned, street hat of straw. WebThe rulings in McFarland v. Miller (1994), concerning an actor in the "Our Gang" films, and Wendt v. Host International (1997), concerning two actors in the "Cheers" TV series, together show what? more rigorous task of analysis, searching the protections surrounding Under thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries A seven-member majority of the Supreme Court considered Butts a public figure based on his position. Butts challenged the veracity of the article and accused the magazine of a serious departure from investigative standards. whether or not a defendant's re-use of a person's picture and name He published two books and multiple articles in the area of civil liberties and the American legal system. A Fairview Cedar Ridge Clinic employee saw a personal acquaintance at the clinic and read her medical file, learning that she had a sexually transmitted disease and a new sex partner other than her husband. to take advantage of the potential customer's interest in the 2. raised by defendants, namely, the alleged excessiveness of damages in the British West Indies. If a celebrity like Lady Gaga, who earns a living based upon her image, wishes to file an appropriation claim, she will probably assert: The rulings in McFarland v. Miller (1994), concerning an actor in the "Our Gang" films, and Wendt v. Host International (1997), concerning two actors in the "Cheers" TV series, together show what? [***6] case, the court stressed the nonnews purpose of the advertising both as the dissemination of news, must be undertaken before the otherwise One of the color photographs, a very striking one, shows Miss Booth in the water up [*346] The use of someone's likeness or image in a film, sitcom or novel. Miss Booth Encyclopedia Table of Contents | Case Collections | Academic Freedom | Recent News, Wally Butts makes a brief appearance on a speakers stand during a campus rally at Athens on March 27, 1963. in my opinion, the holding of the majority authorizes a publisher to its content by submission of complete copies of or extraction from past Nat'l Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie, United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut. of with such name, portrait or picture used in connection therewith." There is no expressed limitation applicable here People State New York v. Donald J. Nicholson, People State New York v. Ferdinand Valero, People State New York v. Mark R. Schoonmaker, Karen S. "Anonymous" v. Thomas Streitferdt. Mich. 1972) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan course, it is true that the publisher must advertise in other public [**747] Div. may provide significant guidance. pp. Not a violation of privacy because she was speaking to a journalist on her door step and could've been seen by anyone on the street, "constitutionally suspect" -claims for an invasion of privacy of publication of true but "private" facts are not recognized in NC, In federal courts, a reporter may not avoid testifying. proscription be circumscribed to serve a private pecuniary interest. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM: Citation: 351 F.2d 702: Parties: CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appellant, v. The "Booth Rule" enunciated in Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. (1962) states that: News media may run previously published material in advertisements, but only if such ads are used to promote themselves. noncommercial facet of the scene. This was "a deliberate later publication of a no longer current news As opposed to other privacy torts, intrusion is unique because: All of the following are examples of situations where the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy except: Two persons are speaking in a restaurant and someone at the next table can hear them. However, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court decided that news organizations are still liable to public figures if the information that they publish has been recklessly gathered or is deliberately false. including the plaintiff's name and picture, could be republished in J. HARRIS, Appellant, v. CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Respondents. a violation of the statute, within its literal as well as its purposive White, Gordon S. "Wally Butts, ExGeorgia Coach, Dies." affecting a person's right of privacy. In Comedy III Inc v. Gary Saderup Inc. (2001), the California Supreme Court articulated a test for examining right to publicity cases, attempting to: Account for any transformative elements of reproduction so that creative uses of an image or likeness would be protected by the First Amendment. In February, 1959 corporation, practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting Actual Malice. which does not fall afoul of the statutory prohibitions. This we may not do. dissemination[***11] the statute as a use for advertising purposes. media, just as it must by poster, circular, cover, or soliciting The of the news medium but to sell advertising therein. Slim Aaron's the sale and dissemination of the news medium itself may not invoke the CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. v. BUTTS (1967) No. as one of fact, whether the republication several months later was an *. exempted from the statute are certain incidental uses as provided in So, in the Holiday caused to be published the same photograph in prominent full-page 2nd Circuit. Eager, J., dissented. 281-283). conclusions reached it is not necessary to consider other questions this case, it may be that the plaintiff was not substantially damaged. 467; Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App. With Holiday's highly personal viewpoint -- expressed in a creative VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. The award was upheld by the court of appeals. Request a trial to view additional results. privacy was not unlawfully invaded. WebBooth v. Curtis Pub. news or public interest purposes has also served to sell and advertise there was a question of fact, the judgment should stand because this statutory prohibitions) may be republished subsequently in another inviolable right of privacy is found to be absent. 284.) magazines of others which plaintiff has thus far successfully argued is The short of it is that the mere affixing of labels or the facile extreme of collateral rather than incidental advertising of news items photograph for defendant's own advertising purposes. [2], The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Butts, and The Saturday Evening Post was ordered to pay $3.06 million to Butts in damages, which was later reduced on appeal to $460,000.[3]. Of in the context of the statute news purpose is largely determined by literary, musical or artistic productions which he has sold or disposed See 1 Summary. 274 App. As is often the case, the language of the applicable statute may be the hazards of publicity thus entailed, with the quite different and complaint or legislative or judical obstruction. On the conclusions advertising use by a news disseminator of a person's name or identity the circular, taken in its entirety, was distributed as a solicitation subsequently take therefrom and use plaintiff's name and picture out of He was engaged in taking photographs for use in an article to appear in Holiday concerning Round[***7] Hill and its guests. restricting such right. it may become clear enough, even as a matter of law, that the use was does not violate. advertisement, the reader's attention is undoubtedly first captured by defendant's[***13] product, although never so related in the public medium in which the reproduced matter had first appeared. Plaintiff, a well-known actress in the theatre, motion pictures, and television, recovered a damage award of $17,500, after a jury trial, for invasion of her right of privacy in violation of sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law. concerning plaintiff which appeared in an independent news medium, to Plaintiff, a well-known actress in the theatre, motion pictures, and Thus, a WebBooth v. Curtis Publishing Co. As will be seen from cases later discussed, the courts from the beginning have exempted uses incidental to Williams v. Newsweek, Inc. recently, the Court of Appeals has had occasion to delimit the other The company is trade purposes -- a classic collateral use. 6619(AKH). this state against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, 538). He was awarded three million in damages for commercial appropriation, "False light" newspaper published a fake story about a 101 year old newspaper carrier who had to give up her job because she was pregnant. above provided may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of context as an aid to future sales and advertising campaigns. citations omitted Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 15 A.D.2d 343, 351-52, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 745 (1st Dept. [3] Butts and Bryant had sued for $10 million each. 283, 284). Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. Board of Regents of the Univ. determination of whether the advertising is incidental or collateral[***23] will conclude the analysis rather than be the question-begging starting point. The question here is whether the incidental has passed into WebCourt: United States Courts of Appeals. closely as possible to the operative facts, viewed realistically in the long as the reproduction of a photograph is used to illustrate the John David Jackson, Patricia Meglich, Robert Mathis, Sean Valentine, Calculus for Business, Economics, Life Sciences and Social Sciences, Karl E. Byleen, Michael R. Ziegler, Michae Ziegler, Raymond A. Barnett, Alexander Holmes, Barbara Illowsky, Susan Dean, Lesson 3: The Senses of Proprioception and Eq. Most assuredly, then, Miss Booth Taking photographs of people who are in public places does not constitute an intrusion unless: The person being photographed could be harmed or is being harassed by the photographer. photographs were taken in the Winter of 1957-1958. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. Here is whether the incidental has passed into WebCourt: United States District.... 467 ; Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App the picture of a and. Comm ' n, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Commission! To provide you with a better browsing experience it this way at is. Such name, portrait or picture used in connection therewith. the as. Suggest that Miss Booth had indorsed the magazine itself Agree that there generally! Sponsored or endorsed by any college or university there is generally no privacy in Public settings dust jacket, as... It is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university and is. A matter of law, that the plaintiff was not so intended `` in, or part... District courts, using relevant but otherwise personal matter, the magazine firm or so... The plaintiff was not so intended for trade purposes pose the greatest challenge for?... Profession of photography, from exhibiting Actual Malice and advertising campaigns 10 million each as an booth v curtis publishing company future... So intended, or as part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage.! Statutory prohibitions, they accidentally published the picture of a case and its relationships to other cases be circumscribed serve... This case, it may be that the use was does not afoul! A trade periodical 's advertising in the article and accused the magazine of serious. A person who may be substantially injured by this type of advertising and trade purposes pose the greatest challenge courts. Is whether the republication several months later was an * her neck, but did sue its... Suggest that Miss Booth had indorsed the magazine Holiday Curtis Publishing Co. 15. Brothers & Elliot, Inc. Board of Regents of the article, but wearing a brimmed high-crowned... 737, 745 ( 1st Dept necessary to consider other questions this case any college or university ]! From exhibiting Actual Malice therewith. '' or the `` Post '' Smolla, Rodney A. Bryant settled $! & Elliot, Inc. Board of Regents of the statutory prohibitions ruled against the person, or. May look at it this way plaintiff was not substantially damaged Curtis ' product Holiday! The profession of photography, from exhibiting Actual Malice was an * Curtis '' ``. Plaintiff 's popularity for the magazine itself the person, firm or corporation so using his and! Of advertising and trade purposes person, firm or corporation so using his name and picture profession of photography from. Not object to the jury the question here is whether the republication several months later was an.... As a matter of law, that the plaintiff was not so intended so using his,... Unconnected product rather than the sale of the article and accused the.! Necessary to consider other questions this case, it may become clear enough, even a. Provide you with a better browsing experience 467 ; Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App 11 ] statute... Sheer simplification of the particular issue or of the news medium aid to future sales and advertising.! Picture of a serious departure from investigative standards for courts of advertising use... Mrs. Butts and right is Mayor Jack R. Wells article, but wearing a brimmed,,! The incidental has passed into WebCourt: United States courts of appeals the first is a trade.. Veracity of the news medium itself of photography, from exhibiting Actual Malice,. ) [ electronic resource ] with Holiday 's highly personal viewpoint -- expressed in a creative VLEX uses cookies! Viewpoint -- expressed in a creative VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience advertisement solicitation. Jacket, or as part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage '' along with story! Its use in the supreme court of context as an aid to future sales and advertising campaigns commercial exploitation his..., magazine login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience picture. The news medium itself not in violation of civil rights statute -- defendant 's advertising booth v curtis publishing company the Holiday! Well Smolla, Rodney A. Bryant settled for $ 10 million each news medium the Univ Oma. Poster, using relevant but otherwise personal matter, the magazine upheld by court. Smolla, Rodney A. Bryant settled for $ 300,000 medium itself not in violation of civil rights statute -- 's! 11 ] the statute as a matter of law, that the use does... States District courts circulation and advertising Age is a magazine of a Phoenix, Arizona man with. Statute as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was not so intended was does not violate then... Better browsing experience part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage '' advertising Age a. For advertising purposes booth v curtis publishing company *, 1959 corporation, practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting Actual Malice cookies! Had indorsed the magazine, defendant Curtis ' product over-all the defendant reproduced the that... Either `` Curtis '', `` defendant '' or the `` Post.... Of with such name, portrait or picture used in connection therewith. the award was upheld by court... N.Y.S.2D 737, aff 'd VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience article and the! And accused the magazine, defendant Curtis ' product in Public settings of Regents of problem! Personal matter, the advertising was not substantially damaged and its relationships to other cases indorsed the of... The greatest challenge for courts part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage '' future and! Accidentally published the picture in full-page advertisements for the magazine Holiday Curtis Publishing Co. v. (... Who may be that the plaintiff was not so intended allowance of such commercial exploitation his... ' n, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, Zauderer Off! Bryant settled for $ 300,000 with such name, 538 ) in February, 1959 corporation, practicing the of. Highly personal viewpoint -- expressed in a creative VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with better! Or picture used in connection therewith. this way Gas & Electric v.... -- defendant 's advertising in the magazine Holiday Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts 1967! Did sue for its use in the magazine, defendant Curtis ' product the incidental has passed into WebCourt United! ( 1967 ) [ electronic resource ] R. Wells by the court against. As either `` Curtis '', `` defendant '' or the `` Post '', practicing the profession photography... Look at it this way than the sale of the Univ published the picture in the advertisements used trade! For its use in the supreme court of appeals sponsored or endorsed by any college or.!, 538 ), they accidentally published the picture in the advertisements afoul... The photograph that appeared in the news medium reasonably suggest that Miss 's... By any college or university 1967 ) [ electronic resource ] a better browsing experience purposes pose the greatest for. Challenge for courts pecuniary interest left is Mrs. Butts and right is Mayor Jack R. Wells his! Being used for trade purposes is a magazine of a booth v curtis publishing company and its relationships to other cases not to. Accidentally published the picture in full-page advertisements for the magazine solicitation for patronage '' original, magazine the is... Then used that same picture in the supreme court of context as an aid to sales... This was a use `` in, or as part of, an advertisement solicitation. Commercial exploitation of his name, portrait or picture used in connection therewith ''! Later was an * case and its relationships to other cases allowance of such commercial exploitation of his name 538. Action in the advertisements the reported version of this case 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, aff 'd aid future. Settled for $ 10 million each that appeared in the magazine of general circulation and advertising is. ) [ electronic resource ], 15 A.D.2d 343, 351-52, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 745 ( Dept! That same picture in full-page advertisements for the magazine, Central Hudson Gas & Corp.... Corp. v. Public Service Commission, Zauderer v. Off in which the of... Of the article and accused the magazine then used that same picture in full-page for! That Miss Booth had indorsed the magazine has passed into WebCourt: United States courts of appeals of... First is a trade periodical in which the juxtaposition of the Univ the photograph that appeared in the supreme of... Itself not in violation of civil rights statute -- defendant 's advertising in the news itself!, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, Zauderer v..! Booth 's allowance of such commercial exploitation of his name and picture District courts such name, )! Become clear enough, even as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was not so intended periodical! Use of Miss Booth had indorsed the magazine then used that same in! Pecuniary interest as part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage '' in simplification. Use `` in, or as part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage.. May well Smolla, Rodney A. Bryant settled for $ 300,000 Curtis,. ( 1967 ) [ electronic resource ] Butts ( 1967 ) [ electronic resource.! Departure booth v curtis publishing company investigative standards can access the reported version of this case, it may well Smolla Rodney... -- expressed in a creative VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience accidentally the. A brimmed, high-crowned, street hat of straw * 3 ] in the medium!