## Facts

- Carl Friedan sued under N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 for nonconsensual use of his name and likeness.
- In 1949, Carl and Betty Friedan (then married) posed with their young son for a family photograph.
- After their divorce, a magazine published a retrospective issue themed around the year 1949.
- Betty Friedan, a prominent public figure, authored an article describing her life as a housewife in 1949.
- The article was illustrated with the 1949 family photograph, which included Carl.
- Three television broadcasters aired promotional commercials for the magazine issue using a page of the magazine that included the photograph.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether publication of Carl Friedan’s photograph in an article about a public figure’s 1949 life was a newsworthy use outside the “advertising” or “trade” prohibitions of N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51.
2. Whether use of the same magazine page containing the photograph in television promotions for the issue transformed the use into prohibited advertising or trade exploitation under §§ 50–51.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for defendants and the complaint was dismissed.
- The article and photograph concerned a matter of legitimate public interest and fell within the newsworthiness exception to §§ 50–51.
- The television promotions for the issue did not convert the newsworthy use into a prohibited use for advertising or trade where the promotion was tied to dissemination of the newsworthy content.

## Legal Principles

- N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 are narrowly construed and target nonconsensual use of name or likeness for advertising purposes or purposes of trade.
- Use of a person’s name or picture in connection with news or matters of public interest is not a use “for purposes of trade” within §§ 50–51.
- When the subject is a public figure, the public interest may predominate over the privacy interests of individuals connected to incidents in the public figure’s life, including family members depicted in contextually relevant materials.
- Promotional use of an image integral to a newsworthy publication does not, without more, strip the use of its newsworthy character under §§ 50–51.

## Conclusion

The court held that the family photograph’s use to illustrate a public figure’s retrospective article, and its appearance in commercials promoting that issue, were protected as newsworthy uses and therefore did not violate N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51.


Friedan v. Friedan, 414 F. Supp. 77 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)