## Facts

- Cary Grant, a well-known film actor, consented in 1946 to be photographed for a magazine article describing the clothing tastes of Hollywood stars.
- In 1971, the magazine reused Grant’s 1946 photograph in a new men’s fashion piece but altered it by replacing everything below the collar with a different model’s body wearing a cardigan sweater-jacket.
- The 1971 caption presented the image as illustrating fashion continuity and specifically identified the featured sweater-coat by brand and price (Forum Sportswear; $22.50).
- Grant did not consent to the 1971 republication or to the altered composite image.
- Grant sued the publisher and the garment manufacturer in federal court on a New York statutory misappropriation/right-of-publicity theory; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on largely undisputed facts.

## Issues

1. Whether the altered 1971 composite photograph and caption used Grant’s picture “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade,” without consent, in violation of New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51.
2. Whether Grant’s 1946 consent to the original editorial photograph and caption authorized the later altered use in 1971.
3. Whether the 1971 publication was protected as editorial/commentary rather than actionable commercial exploitation.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Grant on liability against both defendants and denied defendants’ cross-motions.
- The court held that the 1971 use constituted an unauthorized commercial exploitation of Grant’s persona under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51.
- The court held that the 1946 consent did not extend to the later, altered use tied to promotion of a specific current product.
- The case proceeded only on damages because liability was resolved as a matter of law on the undisputed record.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51, use of a living person’s name or picture “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade” requires written consent; unauthorized commercial use is actionable.
- Editorial or newsworthy use of a person’s image may be permissible, but a publication that functions to sell a specific product—particularly by identifying brand and price—may fall within the statutory ban on advertising/trade uses.
- Consent to one publication does not necessarily authorize a later, materially different use, especially where the image is substantially altered and employed to imply endorsement of a product.
- When material facts about the content, alteration, and manner of use are undisputed, whether the use is commercial under §§ 50–51 may be decided on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that altering and republishing Cary Grant’s image in a way that promoted a specific branded garment, without his consent, violated New York’s statutory protections against commercial misappropriation, and that Grant’s prior consent to a distinct earlier editorial use did not authorize the later promotional use.


Grant v. Esquire, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)