## 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

1. 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.
2. Whether broad parental consents under Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 bar statutory claims when the challenged uses fall within the scope of the release.
3. 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.


Shields v. Gross, 58 N.Y.2d 338 (N.Y. 1983)