## Facts

- Mihail Simeonov, a sculptor, was engaged in connection with a wildlife trust that planned an elephant sculpture using an alginate impression process.
- Cheryl Tiegs volunteered to demonstrate the safety of the alginate process by posing for Simeonov in three sittings while alginate was applied to her face, throat, and part of her chest to create an impression.
- Using the impression, Simeonov created a plaster sculpture of Tiegs’s head and intended to produce approximately ten bronze castings, allegedly valued at about $20,000 each.
- Simeonov had consent to take the alginate impression but did not have Tiegs’s written consent to use her likeness for advertising or trade purposes.
- The plaster sculpture was delivered to Tiegs’s apartment for viewing and was accidentally broken while there.
- Simeonov sued Tiegs (and others) seeking damages tied to the lost value of the planned bronze edition derived from the destroyed plaster cast.
- Defendants moved in limine to limit damages evidence, arguing NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 barred recovery based on intended commercial sales absent written consent.

## Issues

1. Whether New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 prohibit an artist from creating and selling a limited number of sculptures depicting a recognizable living person without that person’s written consent when the work is artistic expression rather than advertising or merchandising.
2. Whether, given §§ 50–51, the plaintiff could present damages evidence based on the alleged lost value of a planned limited series of bronze castings from the destroyed plaster sculpture.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion in limine to limit damages based on NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51.
- The court held that creating an artistic work incorporating a living person’s likeness, and selling at least a limited number of copies, is not automatically a use “for advertising purposes” or “for the purposes of trade” within the meaning of §§ 50–51.
- The court treated the sculpture as potentially protected expressive activity even though the artist intended to sell limited editions.
- The court left factual questions for trial, including whether the sculpture constituted a recognizable likeness of Tiegs and, if so, the appropriate measure of damages.

## Legal Principles

- NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 require written consent for use of a living person’s name, portrait, or picture for “advertising purposes” or “for the purposes of trade.”
- “Purposes of trade” is assessed by the nature and content of the use; a profit motive alone does not convert expressive content into statutory “trade.”
- Artistic expression may fall outside §§ 50–51 even if it is sold for profit, including the sale of limited-edition copies, where the use is not advertising or commercial endorsement.
- The statutory analysis can depend on whether the depiction is a recognizable likeness; recognizability is commonly a fact question for the jury when disputed.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 did not categorically bar damages based on the loss of a plaster sculpture and a planned limited bronze edition because the alleged use was artistic expression rather than statutory “trade,” and recognizability and damages issues were reserved for trial.


Simeonov v. Tiegs, 602 N.Y.S.2d 1014 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1993)