## Facts

- Anastasia Myskina, a professional tennis player, agreed to be photographed for a GQ “Sports” issue feature involving female tennis players.
- Before the July 2002 photo session in New York, Myskina signed a written release on Condé Nast letterhead.
- The release broadly authorized the taking and editorial use of her photographs, and permitted Condé Nast to authorize others to use and publish them for editorial purposes; it contained no express limitation to GQ.
- After the principal session, the photographer took additional photographs that Myskina claimed were subject to an oral promise they would not be published without her further permission.
- Some photographs, including more revealing images, were later licensed for publication in a Russian men’s magazine, Medved, and to a website.
- Myskina alleged she was not fluent in English, was 20 years old at the time, and believed the photographs would be confined to GQ.
- She sued for violations of New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 and asserted related tort and contract claims arising from the later publications.

## Issues

1. Whether the signed release constituted valid written consent barring claims under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 for later editorial publication and syndication.
2. Whether alleged oral assurances limiting publication could be used to restrict the written release, or were barred by the parol-evidence rule.
3. Whether the later publication qualified as newsworthy/editorial use independently defeating §§ 50–51 liability and related tort theories.
4. Whether limited English proficiency and alleged misunderstanding could invalidate the release absent fraud, duress, or similar misconduct.

## Decision

- The court treated defendants’ motion as one for summary judgment because the parties submitted evidentiary materials outside the pleadings.
- The court granted summary judgment for all defendants and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held the release unambiguously provided written consent for editorial use and authorized syndication to other publications.
- The court held parol evidence of oral limitations was inadmissible because it would contradict the broad written grant of rights in the release.
- The court further found the publication was connected to an editorial feature about a prominent athlete and therefore fell within the newsworthiness/public interest protection under New York law.
- The court rejected the argument that limited English proficiency, without proof of fraud or overreaching, negated the effect of signing the release.
- The court dismissed the remaining tort and contract-based claims as foreclosed by the authorized editorial use established by the release and the nature of the publication.

## Legal Principles

- Written consent is a complete defense to claims under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 for use of a person’s image within the scope of that consent.
- A broadly worded release authorizing editorial use and permitting authorization of third parties can cover syndication beyond the initial publication.
- Under New York’s parol-evidence rule, alleged prior or contemporaneous oral promises may not be used to contradict a fully integrated written agreement addressing the same subject matter, even if the writing lacks a merger clause.
- A signer is generally bound by a signed agreement’s terms despite not reading or fully understanding it, including due to language limitations, absent fraud, duress, or misconduct preventing informed assent.
- Editorial use connected to a matter of public interest is protected as newsworthy; where the image reasonably relates to the accompanying editorial content, §§ 50–51 liability is not imposed.

## Conclusion

The court held that a signed, broadly drafted release supplied written consent for editorial publication and syndication of the photographs, barred reliance on alleged oral restrictions under the parol-evidence rule, and—given the editorial, newsworthy context—required dismissal of statutory, tort, and contract claims based on later publication.


Myskina v. Condé Nast Publ'ns, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)