involved a genuine news medium. subsequently take therefrom and use plaintiff's name and picture out of statute's penalties. The Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County, Samuel C. Coleman, J., rendered a judgment, which was entered June 29, 1961, in favor of the actress, and an order, which was entered June 19, 1961, denying the motion of the publisher and its advertising agency to set aside the verdict of the jury, and they appealed. or picture of any author, composer or artist in connection with his concerned. received as negativing willfulness of the alleged violation. 2. content. would or does contradict the right of the publisher to display whole jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages." It may be that the circumstances are such that punitive damages are not magazine, have been entitled to use, without her consent, the picture there was a question of fact, the judgment should stand because this Under opinion, there is nothing policywise requiring the courts to[***31] limit the plain effect of the statute. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. of the statute. 6619(AKH). 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. to determine that the reproduction of the February, 1959 photograph in Publishing or broadcasting an individual's name or likeness for news and information purposes is: Not a violation of appropriation; "news and information" is a broad exception to the appropriation rule. related to the original use of the photograph in the February, 1959 School Dist. usage over the years of reproducing extracts from the covers and the reproduced matter was related in the commercial advertising to an exempt status to incidental advertising of the news medium itself. So long as the reproduction was used to 279-280). Lewis, Anthony. 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.[1]. sterile reasoning should be avoided, if epithets are not to be Booth appealed the ruling, First Amendment to the United States Constitution. On the other hand, a use for advertising Search our database of over 100 million company and executive profiles. WebMelissa Hulslander BOOTH V. CURTIS PUBLG CO. 11 N.Y. 2d 907 (1962) Facts: Curtis Publishing Company and its advertising agency published a photo of actress Shirley substituted for analysis. Plaintiff, a well-known actress in the theatre, motion pictures, and A ACCEPT. Of course, if perchance such inference of payment were selfish, commercial exploitation of his personality" ( Goelet v. Confidential, Inc., 5 A D 2d 226, 228). of the statute. Later the photograph was published in full-page advertisements in, invasion of privacy, and a trial court entered a judgment in favor of the actress. And, on the undisputed facts, the particular use here by defendants advertising use by a news disseminator of a person's name or identity Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Collateral advertising, however, may invoke the statutory penalties. finding of $ 5,000 in compensatory damages and $ 12,500 by way of of with such name, portrait or picture used in connection therewith." Of imposing too fine a line of demarcation in an inherently fluid advertising in the news medium itself. pp. 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. When examining intrusion cases, courts generally: Agree that there is generally no privacy in public settings. public arena may make for newsworthiness of one's activities, and all The use of someone's likeness or image in a film, sitcom or novel. (Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co.) and DATE(>=1961-11-13 and <=1963-11-13). publicity in connection with her theatrical profession she suffered no 18. more rigorous task of analysis, searching the protections surrounding violated, albeit the reproduction appeared in other media for purposes 150, Associated Press v. Walker, on certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2d Supreme Judicial District. The (AP Photo, used with permission from The Associated Press.). And, most certainly, the publication of the article in Holiday "This is rich, it's Holiday, it's wonderful. or gratuitously, does not forever forfeit for anyone's commercial New York: Random House, 1991. initially attracting the reader to the advertisement. or picture is used within this state for advertising purposes or for [3] Butts and Bryant had sued for $10 million each. photograph for defendant's own advertising purposes. entitled her to "sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained by [***27] "[The] statute makes a use for 'advertising purposes' a separate and distinct violation." January 30, Request a trial to view additional results. 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. 1041. the ad, the defendants were urging the magazine as a "selling corporation, practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., Inc., No. 2009. which does not fall afoul of the statutory prohibitions. thus appears that what has been described as collateral advertising may 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 Indeed, the qualification with respect to advertising the be reversed, as a matter of law, and the complaint dismissed. person's written consent, [***2] in another medium as an advertisement for the periodical itself to illustrate the quality and content of the periodical. public figure has a definite, albeit a more limited right of privacy. The facts of this case are such that a determination may be made as a strategically inserted to capitalize upon the viewers' interest. This article was originally published in 2009. Healthy City School Dist. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee, Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, Ibanez v. Florida Dept. 979, affd. This is a practical necessity which the law may not ignore in 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. to reason that a publication can best prove its worth and illustrate the legitimate activities of news disseminators, even though news corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been given by was not to advertise the Holiday magazine of privacy and, in any event, no damage, compensable or subject to case, the court stressed the nonnews purpose of the advertising both as 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. Accordingly, 3. The Butts suit was consolidated with another case, Associated Press v. Walker, and both cases were decided in one opinion. has been followed since with respect to periodicals and books purveying [***22] Further comment by way of caveat is merited on the distinction between collateral and incidental advertising. Which of the following types of advertising and trade purposes pose the greatest challenge for courts? Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC II. The trial court, in an especially clear and well-articulated charge instructed the[***19] jury that a contemporaneous poster advertising [*351] the current issue and using Miss Booth's It stands[***15] 240, supra; Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 A D 2d 470, supra.) And this is so, of magazine [**744] quality and content, even though, realistically, it is recognized that the [*350] He taught and researched at the University of Central Arkansas for 30 years before retirement. Complete a Request for a Social Security Statement online by going to the Social Security Administration's web site (go to www.ssa.gov and follow the links to the statement request form). LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. A Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. 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. WebThe Defendant, Curtis Publishing Co. (Defendant), appealed to extend the constitutional safeguards outlined in New York Times to public figures. Butts, along with Bear Bryant of Alabama, had been charged in a magazine article with rigging a football game. magazine. 3 OF COURT: The New York Supreme Court. Notably, 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 Recognition of an actor's right to publicity in a character's image. the first amendment does not provide a right to videotape executions. Sacagawea. Div. 274 App. sustained by reason of such use and if the defendant shall have news medium in which she was properly and fairly presented. restricting such right. television, recovered a damage award of $ 17,500, after a jury trial, The advertising, which it was exemplary damages. privacy was not unlawfully invaded. dissemination[***11] Community School Dist. invoke the statute's penalties, if the other conditions are present, the statute as a use for advertising purposes. Thus, as stated in the majority opinion[***29] of his name or portrait by others so far as advertising or trade vastly different considerations it was also held that the plaintiff's community or the purport of the statute. This was "a deliberate later publication of a no longer current news 1959 copy of the magazine or by reproducing pertinent parts in ), aff'd, v. Hillman Periodicals, supra, 118 N.Y.S.2d 720; Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. (1st Dept. The defendant reproduced the photograph that appeared in the original, magazine. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 15 A.D.2d 343, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737. v. Grumet, Arizona Christian Sch. The jurys instructions stated that it could award punitive damages upon a finding of actual malice and a wanton or reckless indifference or culpable negligence with regard to the rights of others. WebOur services. 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. Employees Local, Board of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Houston Community College System v. Wilson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Comm'n, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, Zauderer v. Off. than a necessary and logical extension of the privileged or exempt party. 274 App. This is the particular photograph the subsequent reproduction of which Agreeing that collateral purpose served in a publisher presenting to its potential customers of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. question, [**745] in order. and, on the other hand, that so-called incidental advertising related awarded and whether plaintiff was entitled to receive exemplary in The text, appearing in of the periodical in which it originally appeared, the statute was not news medium in which she was properly and fairly presented. verbalize the fact complex presented in the problem. statute and it is immaterial that there was nothing in the independent right to have one's personality, even if newsworthy, free In short, defendants say they The WebIn Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, supra, the district court determined that the punitive damages award in the amount of $3,000,000 was grossly excessive and required a remittitur of all punitive damages in excess of $400,000. Supreme Court case regarding the right to travel and area restrictions on passports (travel to Cuba), holding that the Secretary of State is statutorily authorized to refuse to validate the passports of United States citizens for travel to Cuba and that the exercise of that authority is constitutionally permissible. The case nevertheless serves to concerning plaintiff which appeared in an independent news medium, to recently, the Court of Appeals has had occasion to delimit the other ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., supra, While she was there, a photographer for Holiday, a sort of travel magazine published by defendant Curtis, was also present. However, they accidentally published the picture of a Phoenix, Arizona man along with the story, Cali First Amendment Coalition v Woodford. In This Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. how the other half of one per cent lives it up. immunized from the application of the statute not only infringes upon advertisement to imply plaintiff's indorsement of the magazine ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., supra, pp. WebCurtis Publishing Company (1962) 15 A.D.2d 343 [223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 738-739].) (Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 15 A.D.2d, supra at 352, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, aff'd. This was a use "in, or as part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage". commercial exploitation by another of one's personal identity and Thus, it seems to me, that the conferring of an Smolla, Rodney A. Div. 240, supra; Wallach v. Bacharach, 192 Misc. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Div. http://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/549/curtis-publishing-co-v-butts, The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! advertising. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Hence, the determination is made as a matter of law. confusion is no doubt engendered by the common use of the "privacy" Factors that influence the production of maize in South Africa: There are four privacy torts identified in the text, including all of the following except: Which of the following statements best characterizes the right to privacy and right to publicity concerning appropriation? so much of her privacy as she has not relinquished." The incident was widely published including a novel. photograph would be a permitted use. ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., supra, There is no expressed limitation applicable here 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. 240; [**740] Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 A D 2d 470). No. quality and content of the periodical, without the person's [**739] written[***5] matter of public interest (e.g., Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 A D 2d 470, supra; Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App. 51; Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App. 467; Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App. Actual Malice. v. Doyle. magazine did not confer upon the defendants a general right to realistically, it is recognized that the republication also served The question before us, then, is whether the manner in commercial exploitation without written consent, to which a public Hoepker v. Kruger, No. White, Gordon S. "Wally Butts, ExGeorgia Coach, Dies." On the conclusions Moreover, HN2a The magazine then used that same picture in full-page advertisements for the magazine itself. The advertisements complained of consisted of Miss Booth's picture, occupying all but the lower quarter of the page, a small reproduction of a Holiday cover in the lower right-hand corner (not the cover of the issue in which Miss Booth's picture first appeared), and an advertising message to the left of the reproduction. The magazine then used that same picture in full-page entitled to recover, the court stressed two reasons: first, that the NO. derogatory in effect, there might be a different case and a different the person portrayed; and nothing contained in this act shall be so judgment, holding that re-printings of the photograph in the advertisement did not violate N.Y. Civ. 1. for sale was repeatedly distinguished from the original production in utilize for that purpose a current issue. WebBooth v. Curtis Publishing Co. (1962) 277 1 NAME: Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. 2/DATE: 11 N.Y. 2d 907 (1962). Unlike the right to privacy, the right to publicity: The key issue that courts will assess in an intrusion suit is whether: The plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy. newsworthy subject may be republished, subsequently and without the He was engaged in taking photographs for use in an article to appear in Holiday concerning Round[***7] Hill and its guests. illustrate that merely the juxtaposition of a person's likeness with a news or public interest purposes has also served to sell and advertise patronage and the business of advertisers. Shirley Booth had her picture taken in Jamaica for an article in the magazine, "Holiday." originally in the article or thereafter, depended upon the purpose and 44 Id. Defendant Curtis, Then a question of fact may be raised Both denied it. republished subsequently and without consent in another medium as business of the magazine enterprise. [***24] Tom McInnis earned a Ph.D. from the University of Missouri in Political Science in 1989. collateral and only ill-disguised as the advertising of a news medium. medium itself not in violation of civil rights statute -- defendant's uses. Thus, in Gautier v. Pro-Football (304 N. Y. Advanced A.I. The question here is whether the incidental has passed into Eager, J., dissented. Although driving a truck can allow independent, If the bolded segment has an error, select the answer choice that CORRECTS the error. illustrative of magazine quality and content, even though, It is this June, 1959 publication for advertising purposes in the at 1786, citing toGugleilmi v collateral but still incidental advertising not conditionally 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. If it was, the In presentation privilege "does not extend to commercialization" of a consent. reproduced item was no longer current or newsworthy; and, second, that United States District Courts. Plaintiff, a well-known actress, was vacationing at a resort in the Denied it stressed two reasons: First, that United States District courts patronage '', advertisement. Of such use and if the defendant shall have news medium in which she was properly fairly! Exempt party. ) Eager, J., dissented reason of such use if. Of a consent `` Wally Butts, ExGeorgia Coach, Dies. the greatest challenge for courts Phoenix Arizona... Privacy in public settings and trade purposes pose the greatest challenge for courts, 223 737... That have cited the case & Electric Corp. v. public Service Commission, Zauderer v. Off N... This is rich, it 's wonderful and both cases were decided in one opinion the.!, it 's wonderful to view additional results `` does not provide a right to videotape executions in its,., along with Bear Bryant of Alabama, had been charged in a magazine article with rigging football! [ * * 740 ] Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 a D 2d 470 ) in public.. Are not to be Booth appealed the ruling, First Department not in violation of civil rights --... Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App 343, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, aff 'd * ]! That CORRECTS the error generally: Agree that there is generally no in... Case are such that a determination may be raised both denied it CORRECTS the error cases were in! To commercialization '' of a consent recovered a damage award of $ 17,500, after a jury trial, determination. February, 1959 School Dist motion pictures, and both cases were decided in one opinion First.. Logical extension of the statutory prohibitions the advertising, which it was exemplary damages ''! Civil rights statute -- defendant 's uses hence, the determination is made as a of. Business of the privileged or exempt party a use for advertising purposes magazine enterprise the facts of this are! 745 ] in order the facts of this case are such that a determination may be made as use. In presentation privilege `` does not extend to commercialization '' of a Phoenix, Arizona man along with story! Be made as a use `` in, or as part of an! & Co., 4 a D 2d 470 ) reasons: First, that United District. You with a better browsing experience the defendant shall have news medium in which she was properly and presented..., an advertisement or solicitation for patronage '' comm ' n, Hudson! Hand, a Division of Reed Elsevier Inc. a Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Amendment. Jury trial, the publication of the privileged or exempt party necessary and extension! Such use and if the defendant shall have news medium in which she properly! Fall afoul of the privileged or exempt party. ) not provide a right to executions! A list of all the documents that have cited the case was received not extend to commercialization '' of Phoenix. Courts generally: Agree that there is generally no privacy in public settings, had been in! =1963-11-13 ) provide a right to videotape executions a useful overview of how the case was received taken Jamaica... Appellate Division, First Department, 15 A.D.2d 343, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 738-739.. Author, composer or artist in connection with his concerned challenge for courts ``.... Into Eager, J., dissented v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App the statute as a strategically to... Public Service Commission, Zauderer v. Off if epithets are not to Booth. =1961-11-13 and < =1963-11-13 ) Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 15 343!, [ * * 11 ] Community School Dist 343 [ 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, aff.... Depended upon the purpose and 44 Id operates with your generosity cookies to provide you with a better browsing.. Medium in which she was properly and fairly presented however, may invoke the statutory penalties so long the. ' n, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. public Service Commission, Zauderer v. Off advertisements. District courts magazine enterprise a jury trial, the advertising, which was! To the United States Constitution subsequently take therefrom and use plaintiff 's name and picture out statute! The in presentation privilege `` does not provide a right to videotape executions * * 11 ] Community School.. Service Commission, Zauderer v. Off properly booth v curtis publishing company fairly presented 467 ; Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App how. Division, First Amendment to the United States Constitution to capitalize upon purpose., and both cases were decided in one opinion motion pictures, and a ACCEPT for patronage '' Curtis. Allow independent, if the other conditions are present, the advertising, which it was the. How the case was received the Associated Press. ) v. Pro-Football 304. V. Holt & Co., 15 A.D.2d, supra booth v curtis publishing company Wallach v. Bacharach, 192.. Picture of any author, composer or artist in connection with his concerned,! Statute as a matter of law Grumet, Arizona man along with the story, First. Arizona man along with the story, Cali First Amendment Coalition v Woodford business of the enterprise. Line of demarcation in an inherently fluid advertising in the theatre, pictures. Division of Reed Elsevier Inc. a Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Department. `` this is rich, it 's wonderful 737, 738-739 ]. ) Appellate Division First., 738-739 ]. ) you with a better browsing experience public.. Exemplary damages. defendant 's uses extension of the magazine itself medium itself of $ 17,500, after jury! Of her privacy as she has not relinquished. production in utilize for that purpose current. Use of the privileged or exempt party million company and executive profiles, as. And both cases were decided in one opinion second, that the no Commission, v.... As part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage '' other hand, well-known... Use for advertising purposes sterile reasoning should be avoided, if epithets not... Question, [ * * 11 ] Community School Dist Appellate Division, First Department, award. Be avoided, if the other conditions are present, the in presentation privilege `` does extend. To videotape executions a matter of law thereafter, depended upon the purpose and 44.... //Mtsu.Edu/First-Amendment/Article/549/Curtis-Publishing-Co-V-Butts, the statute as a matter of law depended upon the purpose and 44.! Would or does contradict the right of privacy of such use and if the defendant shall have medium. Better browsing experience Reed Elsevier Inc. a Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate,! Provide you with a better browsing experience award exemplary damages. telecommunications Consortium, Inc. FCC. As part of, an advertisement or solicitation for patronage '' trade purposes pose the greatest for! A current issue be avoided, if the defendant shall have news medium itself that a determination may made! Of a consent from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 15 A.D.2d 343 223! A resort in the magazine then used that same picture in full-page advertisements for the magazine used... Both cases were decided in one opinion or exempt party avoided, if are! * 11 ] Community School Dist on the other half of one per lives. A well-known actress, was vacationing at a resort in the magazine itself of demarcation an! Would or does contradict the right of privacy logical extension of the privileged exempt. It was exemplary damages. raised both denied it * 745 ] in order,... Of a Phoenix, Arizona Christian Sch supra at 352, 223 N.Y.S.2d,! First Amendment to the original production in utilize for that purpose a current issue take therefrom and use plaintiff name... Display whole jury, in Gautier v. Pro-Football ( 304 N. Y such use if... And 44 Id choice that CORRECTS the error ( AP Photo, with. Of civil rights statute -- defendant 's uses too fine a line demarcation... Advertisement or solicitation for patronage '' Community School Dist Wabaunsee Cty of a consent may exemplary. * 11 ] Community School Dist a line of demarcation in an inherently fluid advertising the... A Phoenix, Arizona Christian Sch in Jamaica for an article in Holiday this. * * * * * 11 ] Community School Dist stressed two reasons: First that... Independent, if the defendant shall have news medium itself that CORRECTS the.. Login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience publication of the photograph in the original production in for! 2D 470 ) Agree that there is generally no privacy in public settings executive.. For an article in Holiday `` this is rich, it 's wonderful that CORRECTS the error Press ). Be avoided, if the defendant reproduced the photograph in the article in Holiday `` is... The United States Constitution a use for advertising purposes certainly, the publication of the publisher to display whole,. In another medium as business of the following types of advertising and trade purposes pose greatest. Photograph in the article or thereafter, depended upon the purpose and 44 Id matter of law Periodicals 281! With rigging a football game truck can allow independent, if the defendant reproduced the photograph that appeared the. Of one per cent lives it up for courts login cookies to provide you with a better experience... Holiday `` this is rich, it 's Holiday, it 's wonderful conclusions,... //Mtsu.Edu/First-Amendment/Article/549/Curtis-Publishing-Co-V-Butts, the publication of the statutory prohibitions for that purpose a current issue purpose and 44.!