Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Lisa DOE and Donald Doe, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. DARIEN LAKE THEME PARK & CAMPING RESORT, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs allege that defendant breached their privacy rights under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 by using a photograph of plaintiffs in its 1997 and 1998 advertising brochures and web site home pages. Although the court erred in determining that the incidental use exception to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 does not apply as a matter of law (cf., Stillman v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 2 A.D.2d 18, 19-20, 153 N.Y.S.2d 190, affd. 5 N.Y.2d 994, 184 N.Y.S.2d 856, 157 N.E.2d 728), we nevertheless conclude that the motion was properly denied because the applicability of the exception is an issue of fact for the jury. Where, as here, the use of a person's picture “is ‘fleeting and incidental’, it will not be actionable as a nonconsensual use of that person's [picture] for the purpose of advertising” (Marks v. Elephant Walk, 156 A.D.2d 432, 434, 548 N.Y.S.2d 549, quoting Delan v. CBS, Inc., 91 A.D.2d 255, 260, 458 N.Y.S.2d 608). “Whether a particular use is incidental is determined through an assessment of the ‘relationship of the references to a particular individual “to the main purpose and subject of the [work in issue]” ’ ” (Delan v. CBS, Inc., supra, at 260, 458 N.Y.S.2d 608, quoting Ladany v. Morrow & Co., 465 F.Supp. 870, 882). That assessment must be made by a jury in this case (see, Grodin v. Liberty Cable, 244 A.D.2d 153, 664 N.Y.S.2d 276).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 13, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)