## Facts

- Phyllis Chesler authored *Women and Madness*, first published in hardcover by Doubleday.
- Doubleday granted Avon Book Division the right to publish a paperback edition.
- After release, Chesler alleged the paperback was not a faithful reproduction because portions of text, illustrations, and footnotes were omitted, altered, or rearranged.
- Chesler claimed the changes “mutilated” the work and harmed her reputation and professional standing.
- Chesler asserted tort-based claims, including negligent/unfaithful reproduction and libel based on alleged misrepresentation of her work.
- Avon contended the differences were not materially distortive, were within its publishing rights, and did not constitute tortious conduct or defamation.
- Avon moved to dismiss (and/or for summary judgment) challenging the legal sufficiency of the tort and libel theories.

## Issues

1. Whether omissions of illustrations and footnotes and minor textual changes in a paperback edition constitute a material distortion supporting tort liability (including negligence-type theories and libel) under New York law.
2. Whether the author is entitled to damages or injunctive-type relief for alleged reputational injury from publication of the altered edition.

## Decision

- The court held the differences between the hardcover and paperback editions, considered as a whole, did not amount to actionable mutilation or a libelous distortion.
- The court dismissed Chesler’s tort and libel damages theories because the publication did not materially misrepresent her ideas or convey defamatory matter “of and concerning” her.
- The court nonetheless ordered limited corrective relief requiring Avon to clearly inform readers that certain content (notably illustrations and footnotes) had been omitted or changed in the paperback.

## Legal Principles

- Libel requires a false, defamatory statement of fact “of and concerning” the plaintiff that tends to injure reputation or the plaintiff’s profession; editorial changes that do not materially misstate the author’s views are generally not defamatory.
- Tort liability for alteration of an author’s work requires a substantial, reputationally harmful distortion or misrepresentation, not merely omissions of supporting material or formatting/production variations.
- Where a publisher acts within granted publication rights, ordinary editorial or production decisions do not, without a material and harmful misrepresentation, create independent tort liability.
- A court may grant limited equitable relief to prevent reader confusion by requiring disclosure that an edition differs from the original, even when damages claims fail.

## Conclusion

The court rejected claims that Avon's paperback edits and omissions created tort or defamation liability because they did not materially distort or defame the author, but it required Avon to provide clear notice that the paperback omitted or altered certain elements of the hardcover edition.


Chesler v. Avon Book Div., 352 N.Y.S.2d 552 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1973)