Facts
- In 1975, Brooke Shields, age 10, posed nude for photographs taken by professional photographer Garry Gross in connection with a modeling job arranged through a modeling agency and financed by a publisher.
- Shields’s mother and legal guardian executed two written consents granting Gross broad rights to use, publish, and assign the photographs without time or media limits.
- The photographs were later published and displayed in multiple venues, including a portfolio and large window enlargements; Shields and her mother knew of these uses.
- Shields later sought to buy the negatives after learning the images appeared in a foreign magazine and after hearing Gross intended further uses.
- Shields sued seeking to prevent further publication and to recover damages under New York’s statutory privacy/publicity scheme.
Issues
- Whether a minor may disaffirm an unrestricted written consent executed by a parent/guardian and sue under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51 for later uses of the minor’s images.
- Whether broad parental consents under Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 bar statutory claims when the challenged uses fall within the scope of the release.
- What relief, if any, is available when a defendant stipulates to limitations on certain categories of publication.
Decision
- The New York Court of Appeals held that a parent or guardian may give effective written consent under Civil Rights Law § 51 and that, when unrestricted, it bars the minor’s statutory claim for uses within its scope.
- The court rejected applying the general infancy-contract disaffirmance doctrine to create a statutory cause of action where the statute recognizes parental consent.
- The court accepted the trial court’s factual determination that the consents were unrestricted as to time and use and covered Gross’s challenged publications.
- The court reversed the broader injunction entered by the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s more limited, stipulation-based injunction barring use in pornographic or predominantly prurient publications.
- A dissent would have allowed broader injunctive relief against trade or advertising uses, emphasizing protection of minors and narrow construction of broad releases involving nude images.
Legal Principles
- New York recognizes no common-law privacy right; claims for unauthorized use of a person’s picture for advertising or trade arise only under Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51.
- Civil Rights Law § 51 contemplates that a parent or guardian may provide written consent on behalf of a minor; an unlimited consent prevents the statutory claim from arising for uses within the consent’s scope.
- General contract doctrines concerning minors’ capacity do not override the statute’s express allocation of authority to parents/guardians to consent for minors in this context.
- The scope of a written image release is determined by its text and supported by the parties’ conduct; unrestricted releases may authorize broad reuse and licensing.
- Injunctive restrictions may be enforced where adopted by stipulation, even when the plaintiff lacks a statutory basis for broader relief.
Conclusion
The court held that an unrestricted written consent signed by a minor’s parent or guardian under Civil Rights Law § 51 is binding on the minor and bars later attempts to rescind the consent and sue for publication or display of the images within the release’s scope, while leaving in place a narrow, stipulation-based limitation on pornographic or predominantly prurient uses.