## Facts

- Agatha Christie, a famous mystery writer, disappeared for 11 days in 1926 and never publicly explained where she was or what she did during that period.
- After Christie’s death in 1976, her daughter and sole legatee, along with corporate assignees of Christie’s interests, sued over a motion picture and a related novel titled *Agatha*.
- The film and novel used Christie’s name and the 1926 disappearance as a premise but presented a largely fictional account, including invented motives and events.
- Plaintiffs alleged the works unlawfully exploited Christie’s persona and sought to enjoin distribution and publication based on right of publicity, invasion of privacy, and related unfair competition theories.
- Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunctions; defendants opposed and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether New York recognizes a post-mortem, descendible right of publicity permitting a deceased celebrity’s heir/assignees to control expressive uses of the celebrity’s name and persona.
2. Whether a fictionalized film and novel about a real public figure and historical incident may be enjoined under publicity or privacy theories consistent with the First Amendment.
3. Whether defendants could avoid liability by characterizing the works as biography, news, or “fair comment,” despite substantial fictionalization.

## Decision

- The court denied preliminary injunctive relief against distribution of the film and publication of the novel.
- The court rejected defendants’ attempt to treat the works as protected “biography” or news reporting for purposes of a categorical privilege where the portrayal was substantially fictionalized.
- The court nonetheless held that fictionalized treatments of real persons and events are protected expressive works under the First Amendment.
- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions in substantial part, concluding plaintiffs failed to state claims that could justify suppressing the works under New York law consistent with constitutional protections.

## Legal Principles

- In New York, privacy/publicity protection is primarily statutory (Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51) and is not treated as a broad, freely descendible property right enabling heirs to control expressive depictions after death.
- A “biography” or newsworthiness characterization does not automatically immunize a work that materially fictionalizes a real person’s inner life or motives.
- Fictional works about public figures and historical incidents generally receive First Amendment protection even when unflattering or imaginatively reconstructed.
- Publicity, privacy, and unfair competition theories cannot be extended to give private parties a veto over protected expressive portrayals absent a legally sufficient, constitutionally permissible basis.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin the film and novel and largely dismissed the claims, holding that New York does not recognize a post-mortem publicity right broad enough to bar expressive, fictionalized portrayals of a public figure and that the First Amendment protects such works.


Hicks v. Casablanca Records, 464 F. Supp. 426 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)