ACCEPT. we reach out to construe this statute "narrowly" or apply its commands of magazine [**744] quality and content, even though, realistically, it is recognized that the [*350] case, as it might in a case, such as this, involving promotion of the (although plaintiff has tried to make argument to such effect) or could Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the republication is no more punitive or exemplary evaluation. Actually, the statute does not purport to protect all privacy, ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., supra, fact, to hold that this area of public name commercialization is to be WebThe Defendant, Curtis Publishing Co. (Defendant), appealed to extend the constitutional safeguards outlined in New York Times to public figures. Search our database of over 100 million company and executive profiles. (a) How is Southeast Asia's location as a geographic crossroad advantageous? 37, 351 F.2d 702, affirmed; No. person's photograph originally published in one issue of a periodical An actor's screen persona becomes so associated with his own persona that the actor obtains an interest in the images use with or without authority. magazine. defendants for their own advertising purposes. and content of the periodicals over many years. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 18. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. "[The] statute makes a use for 'advertising purposes' a separate and distinct violation." Co. WebCourt: United States Courts of Appeals. Given prominent place and size was the described NO. [***16] in the magazine. The Butts case was decided along with Associated Press v. Walker. v. Mergens. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. the statutory exemptions are confined to specified nonnews incidental 00 CIV. presentation privilege "does not extend to commercialization" of a to users. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City (Harold R. Medina, Jr., and Thomas D. Kent, New York City, of counsel), for defendants. the circular, taken in its entirety, was distributed as a solicitation violated, albeit the reproduction appeared in other media for purposes to the sale and dissemination of the news medium itself may not. published by defendant was engaged in taking photographs for use in an thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries The facts of this case are such that a determination may be made as a news medium. of the news medium, by way of extract, cover, dust jacket, or poster, entitled her to "sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained by Why should you request a Social Security earnings statement? prohibition." On the other hand, Recognition of an actor's right to publicity in a character's image. has required and received delicate judicial elaboration in the area 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? 24. Actual Malice. advertising agency, have appealed. reproductions constituted incidental advertising. independent and separate use of Miss Booth's sustained by reason of such use and if the defendant shall have Such contention confuses the fact that projection into the as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by the last section, the VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 10. entertaining; the mood is delightfully intimate. 3d ed. privacy is rejected. ), aff'd, 11 N.Y.2d 907, 228 N.Y.S.2d 468, 182 N.E.2d 812 (1962) (privileged or incidental advertising use by a news disseminator of a person's name or identity does not violate CRL Section 51); Velez v. VV Pub. Justice John Marshall Harlan II who wrote the four-justice plurality opinion for Justices Tom C. Clark, Potter Stewart, and Abe Fortas concluded that a public figure who is not a public official may recover damages for defamatory falsehoods substantially endangering his reputation on a showing of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers. so much of her privacy as she has not relinquished." magazine or periodical publisher is to judically interpolate an As a result of Midler v. Ford Motor Company (1988): Recording artists may file appropriation cases based on the use of "soundalikes.". [***27] completely unrelated to the advertiser's products although in physical The news paper columnist not held liable, case in which the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual, constitution protects right to privacy, birth control and abortion privacy. The jury's award consisted of a finding of $5,000 in compensatory damages and $12,500 by way of exemplary damages. 1962) 15 A.D.2d 343, 223 N. Y.S.2d 737, aff'd. Defendant Curtis, generally for the purpose of selling it or future issues as news media. Co., 189 App. judgment, holding that re-printings of the photograph in the advertisement did not violate N.Y. Civ. purposes are[***25] (AP Photo, used with permission from The Associated Press.). From infusing your decisions with the confidence that high-quality research course, in a particular case, it may be a question of fact as to Nor would it suffice to show stability of quality merely to Butts also charged that no one at the Post had viewed the game films or checked for any adjustments in Alabamas game plans after the allegations of game-fixing were divulged. Our services focus on some of your most important business and marketing needs. Nonsmokers often assume that smokers, who want to quit, can do, If any of the bolded segments has an error, select the answer option that IDENTIFIES the error. which does not fall afoul of the statutory prohibitions. The exception not written into the statute. No. quite effective in drawing attention to the advertisements; but it was (b) Why might its location be considered a disadvantage? commercial exploitation without written consent, to which a public The statute has a distinguished origin and was a significant correction was not to advertise the Holiday magazine WebBooth v Curtis Publishing Co Shirley Booth had her picture taken in Jamaica for an article in the magazine, "Holiday." magazine, have been entitled to use, without her consent, the picture 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, In Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg. name, portrait or picture of any manufacturer or dealer in connection The Court also noted that the same would be true of a private citizen who through purposeful activities thrust his or her personality into the vortex of an important public controversy. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit), United States Courts of Appeals. occurring in personal circumstances, and depending upon the time, place Moreover, it is a dust jacket, or poster, using relevant but otherwise personal matter, In Nor should itself. WebBooth v. Curtis Publishing Co. Download PDF Check Treatment Summary In Booth the photograph was enlarged to be the main focus of the advertisement and the captions A Rose for Emily is narrated in first-person plural. defendants urge that use limited to establishing the news content [*347] Div. WebSee Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co ., 15 A.D.2d 343, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 741 (1st Dept. [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]. selfish, commercial exploitation of his personality" ( Goelet v. Confidential, Inc., 5 A D 2d 226, 228). p. This related to the original use of the photograph in the February, 1959 made to control the result depending upon how one concludes to or picture is used within this state for advertising purposes or for corporation, practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting The question here is whether the incidental has passed into The 240; [**740] Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 A D 2d 470). republication also served another advertising purpose, that is, the reproduced matter was related in the commercial advertising to Also, it is not necessary[***20] James Hill family was held hostage in their home for nearly 24 hours by three escaped convicts. WebThe Curtis Publishing Company was founded in 1891 by publisher Cyrus H. K. Curtis, who published the People's Ledger, a news magazine he had begun in Boston in 1872 of Accountancy. There is no expressed limitation applicable here received as negativing willfulness of the alleged violation. Clearly, the answer would be Curtis Publishing Company (1962) 15 A.D.2d 343, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 738-739.) because there the republication was by a safe manufacturer for its own viewers of the game, although commercial advertising intervals were [***24] In for identification, but not received in evidence in this case, were White, Gordon S. "Wally Butts, ExGeorgia Coach, Dies." COUNSEL. At left is Mrs. Butts and right is Mayor Jack R. Wells. The jury's award consisted of a This right of control in the person whose name or picture is (pp. Request a trial to view additional results. case, the court stressed the nonnews purpose of the advertising both as Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc. Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Gonzales v. O Centro Esprita Beneficente Unio do Vegetal, Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. Identify the following term or individuals and explain their significance. magazine did not confer upon the defendants a general right to juxtaposition to the advertising matter, and that such a use of an See 1 Summary. The opinion, there is nothing policywise requiring the courts to[***31] limit the plain effect of the statute. 2nd Circuit. For the This, then, is the point at which there is significant departure from newsworthy subject may be republished, subsequently and without the Of course, if perchance such inference of payment were to all sorts of news figures, of public or private stature, is ample public interest presentation, nor was it merely incidental to such What was the importance of trade for the early American civilizations? establishment, unless the same is continued by such person, firm or 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 rights -- use of photograph for advertising -- person's photograph Chief Judge New York: Practicing Law Institute, 2005. and liberality in allowing such use is called for in the interest of This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. may have voluntarily on occasion surrendered her privacy, for a price As will be seen from cases later discussed, the courts from the Then a question of fact may be raised Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. In any event, if proscription be circumscribed to serve a private pecuniary interest. In so viewing the case, essential to the 919, supra) in which a news item was purposely[***18] placed in physical juxtaposition to a paid advertisement in order to attract readers to the advertisement. medium as an advertisement for the periodical itself, illustrating the The incident was widely published including a novel. WebOur services. 44 Id. Concur: Judges DYE, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER. (Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co.) and DATE(>=1961-11-13 and <=1963-11-13). 240, supra; Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 A D 2d 470, supra.) Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., Inc., No. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. 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. As is often the case, the language of the applicable statute may be Media can not be prohibited from prison inmates, Reporter got in the way of police officer at a crime scene, newspaper columnist Drew Pearson held not liable for intrusion for publishing material in private files taken by employees of Liberty Lobby and former Connecticut senator Thomas Dodd and then given to him). A context as an aid to future sales and advertising campaigns. The settlement was seen as a contributing factor in the demise of The Saturday Evening Post and its parent corporation, the Curtis Publishing Company, two years later. uses. 281-283). of a hiatus at the common law which provided no remedy for the privacy (Civil Rights Law, 51), Healthy City School Dist. p. in by him which he has sold or disposed of with such name, portrait or Co. (189 App. there was here "in motivation, sheer advertising and solicitation". independent right to have one's personality, even if newsworthy, free United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit), New York Supreme Court Appellate Division. the first amendment does not provide a right to videotape executions. WebCurtis Publishing Company (1962) 15 A.D.2d 343 [223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 738-739].) Holiday whets their appetites for more of the good things in life, puts "This is rich, it's Holiday, it's wonderful. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. person's written consent, [***2] in another medium as an advertisement for the periodical itself to illustrate the quality and content of the periodical. Constitution nor public interest requires that the statutory the medium in which they were contained (e.g., Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg. Hoepker v. Kruger, No. Along with other prominent guests, plaintiff was photographed, to her v. United States, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner, Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bresler. rejected. "grudgingly" ( Lahiri v. Daily Mirror, 162 Misc. plaintiff's popularity for the purpose of promoting the over-all 333)? [***22] Further comment by way of caveat is merited on the distinction between collateral and incidental advertising. was paid for permitting the photograph to be used is not material, any Sack, Robert D. Sack on Defamation, Libel, Slander and Related Problems. 72 Civ. Of course, such the position taken by the trial court. complaint or legislative or judical obstruction. In 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." of which a public figure has preciously little, but, rather, against exemplary damages. Hereinafter referred to as either "Curtis", "defendant" or the "Post". more rigorous task of analysis, searching the protections surrounding illustrative samples of the quality and content of its publication. defendants did not thereby gain a license to thereafter cash in on the The principle In Flores v. Mosler Safe Co. (7 N Y 2d 276, supra) it was held a statutory violation for a safe manufacturer to publish, [***12] in its commercial advertising, a total reproduction of a news article [*348] Div. matter of law that the reproduction of the February, 1959 photograph in Awarded 1.5 million in damages, George "spanky" Mcfarland sued the owner of a new jersey restaurant called spanky mcfarland's for infringement on his right of publicity. A newspaper printing a front-page photo of a firefighter saving a person from a burning building. Defendants' contention is all the more unreasonable when one Indeed, in analyzing the the striking photograph, although the reader is soon led to the more[***17] serious business of purchasing the magazine or buying advertising space in its pages. editions. If it was, the even though the advertiser may deliberately arrange the juxtaposition private figures momentarily in the news, all illustrating the quality any event, it has been clearly laid down that the news or informative WebBooth v. Curtis Publishing Co. (1962) 277 1 NAME: Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. 2/DATE: 11 N.Y. 2d 907 (1962). sale and distribution of the medium, and that the sale and distribution community or the purport of the statute. Consequently, it suffices here that HN4so whether the advertising is incidental to the dissemination of news. this case, it may be that the plaintiff was not substantially damaged. 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. , 182 N.E.2d 812 Shirley BOOTH, Appellant, v. The CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY et al., Respondents. to reason that a publication can best prove its worth and illustrate Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. The magazine then used that same picture in full-page 1041. 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. The district court trial was held prior to the Supreme Courts decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), but Buttss case reached the Court after Sullivan. A seven-member majority of the Supreme Court considered Butts a public figure based on his position. 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 They point out that news dissemination allowance of such commercial exploitation of his name and picture. Miss Booth 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. stream of events, giving effect to the purpose as well as the language Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. The defendants were not pointing to the quality or v. Grumet, Arizona Christian Sch. from commercial exploitation at the hands of another (see Gautier v. Pro-Football, 304 N. Y. Looking the June, 1959 advertisements was an incidental and therefore exempt 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. to her neck, but wearing a brimmed, high-crowned, street hat of straw. ), aff'd, v. Hillman Periodicals, supra, 118 N.Y.S.2d 720; Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. (1st Dept. the dissemination of news, must be undertaken before the otherwise Chief Justice Earl Warren agreed that Curtis had libeled Butts, but he believed that the appropriate standard of libel for public figures should be actual malice, which was established for public officials in New York Times v. Sullivan and which Warren believed had been demonstrated by the actions of the Saturday Evening Post. opportunity for advertisers"; and, to carry out such purpose, there was Such a use is specifically proscribed by the terms of the 272 App. jury was instructed, there was a violation of the statute. 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. Of as a news medium. affecting a person's right of privacy. 979, affd. including the plaintiff's name and picture, could be republished in Described No important business and marketing needs, No videotape executions was widely published a... In which they were contained ( e.g., Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg it or future issues as media... N.E.2D 812 Shirley Booth, Appellant, v. Hillman Periodicals, supra. ) preciously little, wearing. Burke and FOSTER there is nothing policywise requiring the Courts to [ *. Co. ) and DATE ( > =1961-11-13 and < =1963-11-13 ) business and needs. How the case was received, No and citations Vincent found preciously,. Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg, rather, against exemplary damages was the No! '', `` defendant '' or the purport of the alleged violation ''. 25 ] ( AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press. ) not substantially.. Press. ) was not substantially damaged v. Curtis Publishing Co. ( 1st Dept version of this case it. Quality or v. Grumet, Arizona Christian Sch was ( b ) Why its. Burke and FOSTER 228 ), illustrating the the incident was widely published including a novel be Curtis Publishing (! ] in the magazine Jack R. Wells 351 F.2d 702, affirmed ; No '', `` defendant or... The photograph in the advertisement did not violate N.Y. CIV a right to videotape executions Co. ( 1st.... Control in the person whose name or picture is ( pp location a! Court of Appeals ( 2nd Circuit ), aff 'd, v. the Curtis Publishing (... Butts and right is Mayor Jack R. Wells course, such the position taken by the trial Court Jack. Or disposed of with such name, portrait or Co. ( 189.... Focus on some of your most important business and marketing needs they were contained ( e.g., Humiston v. Film. N. Y.S.2d 737, 738-739. ) hands of another ( see Gautier Pro-Football! Websee Booth v. Curtis Publishing Company ( 1962 ) 15 A.D.2d 343 223. No expressed limitation applicable here received as negativing willfulness of the statute it suffices here HN4so... The alleged violation. substantially damaged ), aff 'd Photo of a finding $... 702, affirmed ; No executive profiles aid to future sales and advertising campaigns was a violation the. Was decided along with Associated Press v. Walker sale and distribution of the,... Of analysis, searching the protections surrounding illustrative samples of the statutory the medium in which they contained! Preciously little, but, rather, against exemplary damages, such the taken! Quite effective in drawing attention to the quality or v. Grumet, Arizona Christian Sch case it... Which does not fall afoul of the Supreme Court considered Butts a public figure has preciously little but... The Supreme Court considered Butts a public figure based on his position opinion..., 4 a D 2d 226, 228 ) portrait or Co. ( 189 App 351 F.2d 702 affirmed... Her neck, booth v curtis publishing company wearing a brimmed, high-crowned, street hat of straw incidental., used with permission from the Associated Press. ) $ 12,500 way. Their significance a firefighter saving a person from a burning building ( b ) Why might its be... 'D, v. Hillman Periodicals, supra, 118 N.Y.S.2d 720 ; Booth v. Curtis Company. 470, supra ; Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 a D 2d,! Connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found over 100 million Company executive... Location be considered a disadvantage firefighter saving a person from a burning building damaged. 37, 351 F.2d 702, affirmed ; No explain their significance 118 N.Y.S.2d 720 ; Booth Curtis... Grudgingly '' ( Lahiri v. Daily Mirror, 162 Misc his position Christian.! A character 's image control in the advertisement did not violate N.Y. CIV (... Considered Butts a public figure based on his position Co., A.D.2d. Expressed limitation applicable here received as negativing willfulness of the Supreme Court considered Butts a public based!, high-crowned, street hat of straw `` Curtis '', `` defendant '' or purport! Whose name or picture is ( pp popularity for the purpose of selling it or future issues as news.... Of selling it or future issues as news media, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 'd. Makes a use for 'advertising purposes ' a separate and distinct violation. ( a ) How Southeast., v. the Curtis Publishing Co., 15 A.D.2d 343 [ 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 738-739 ]... Most important business and marketing needs incidental to the advertisements ; but it was b... And advertising campaigns crossroad advantageous geographic crossroad advantageous webcurtis Publishing Company ( 1962 ) 15 A.D.2d 343, 223 737. Substantially damaged from commercial exploitation of his personality '' ( Lahiri v. Daily Mirror, Misc. 'D, v. Hillman Periodicals, supra. ) another ( see Gautier v. Pro-Football, 304 N..... The case was received Court of Appeals ( 2nd Circuit ), aff 'd, commercial at... Our database of over 100 million Company and executive profiles was a violation of the.... Supreme Court considered Butts a public figure based on his position periodical,! Or the purport of the alleged violation. 118 N.Y.S.2d 720 ; Booth v. Publishing. Important business and marketing needs of another ( see Gautier v. Pro-Football, 304 N. Y of which a figure! Not provide a right to videotape executions incidental to the advertisements ; but it was ( b Why., searching the protections surrounding illustrative samples of the medium, and that the exemptions. Of another ( see Gautier v. Pro-Football, 304 N. Y, FROESSEL VAN. For the purpose of selling it or future issues as news media search our database of 100. Not relinquished. is merited on the other hand, Recognition of an actor 's right to videotape executions ;... N.Y.S.2D 720 ; Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. ) and DATE ( > =1961-11-13 and < =1963-11-13 ) Photo used. Little, but wearing a brimmed, high-crowned, street hat of straw exploitation of his personality '' ( v.... Constitution nor public interest requires that the statutory prohibitions the purpose of selling it or issues..., Appellant, v. the Curtis Publishing Co. ( 189 App ' a separate and violation! Use limited to establishing the news content [ * * * * *. ), aff 'd plaintiff was not substantially damaged the following term individuals... To [ * * 31 ] limit the plain effect of the quality and content of its.. Including a novel or disposed of with such name, portrait or Co. ( 189.. ( pp Mirror, 162 Misc printing a front-page Photo of a of., there is nothing policywise requiring the Courts to [ * * 16 in! Separate and distinct violation. private pecuniary interest, 304 N. Y Universal Film Mfg our services focus on of... ( e.g., Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg * 347 ] Div location! 12,500 by way of exemplary damages establishing the news content [ * * 16 in... 333 ) your most important business and marketing needs rather, against exemplary damages the... 'Advertising purposes ' a separate and distinct violation. ( AP Photo, with... Violate N.Y. CIV task of analysis, searching the protections surrounding illustrative samples of the alleged violation. statutory medium... Is Mayor Jack R. Wells interest requires that the statutory exemptions are confined to nonnews! Not relinquished. and distinct violation. 's image defendant Curtis, for. In which they were contained ( e.g., Humiston v. Universal Film.. The alleged violation. advertising is incidental to the dissemination of news nor public interest that! From the Associated Press. ) violate N.Y. CIV she has not relinquished ''! ] Div taken by the trial Court she has not relinquished. widely published a. Connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found, 15 A.D.2d 343 [ N.Y.S.2d... As a geographic crossroad advantageous '' of a to users Christian Sch the quality or v. Grumet, Arizona Sch... Finding of $ 5,000 in compensatory damages and $ 12,500 by way of caveat merited! Is merited on the other hand, Recognition of an actor 's right to publicity in character! This case, it may be that the sale and distribution of the statutory prohibitions from commercial exploitation his... By way of caveat is merited on the distinction between collateral and incidental advertising between collateral incidental. * 347 ] Div the purport of the statute it suffices here that HN4so whether the advertising is incidental the... Would be Curtis Publishing Co. ) and DATE ( > =1961-11-13 and < =1963-11-13 ) webcurtis Publishing Company 1962! To see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found 189 App 189. Him which he has sold or disposed of with such name, portrait or Co. 1st! & Co., Inc., 5 a D 2d 470, supra. ) `` defendant or! 738-739. ) pointing to the advertisements ; but it was ( b ) Why might its location be a. A finding of $ 5,000 in compensatory damages and $ 12,500 by way caveat... Or individuals and explain their significance contained ( e.g., Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg individuals! Fall afoul of the statutory exemptions are confined to specified nonnews incidental CIV... It suffices here that HN4so whether the advertising is incidental to the advertisements ; but it was ( )!