## Facts

- Tony Stephano, a professional model, was photographed for a *New York* magazine fall fashion photo session on August 11, 1981.
- The magazine later used photographs from the session in two different placements.
- In the September 7, 1981 issue, Stephano appeared in a “Fall Fashions” article (“Classic Mixes”) modeling clothing.
- In the August 31, 1981 issue, the magazine used another photograph of Stephano in its recurring “Best Bets” column, a consumer-interest feature highlighting products and services.
- The “Best Bets” item displayed Stephano modeling a Giorgio Armani bomber jacket and included descriptive text, an approximate price, and a list of stores where the jacket would be available.
- The publisher sent Stephano a written release for all photographs around the time of the shoot, but Stephano refused to sign it.
- Stephano claimed he consented only to use of his photographs in the September 7 fashion article, not in the August 31 “Best Bets” item.
- Stephano sued under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51 for unauthorized use “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade,” and also asserted a common-law right of publicity claim based on the same publication.

## Issues

1. Whether use of Stephano’s photograph in the magazine’s “Best Bets” column—alongside product description, price, and retail outlets—was a use “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade” under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51, or instead protected editorial/newsworthy content.
2. Whether New York recognizes a separate common-law right of publicity that permits recovery independent of N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 for the same alleged misuse of a person’s likeness.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated summary judgment for the publisher.
- The court held the “Best Bets” publication was not “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade” within § 51 because it was a legitimate editorial/newsworthy feature.
- The court held New York’s privacy/publicity protections are governed exclusively by Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51, barring an independent common-law right of publicity claim on the same facts.
- The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

## Legal Principles

- N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51 is limited to unauthorized uses of a person’s name or likeness for “advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade” and does not reach legitimate newsworthy or editorial content.
- Editorial features about consumer-interest topics (including fashion and products) may remain “newsworthy” even when they include prices and identify retail outlets, absent proof the feature is a disguised advertisement.
- A photograph used to illustrate the subject of an editorial item is generally protected when it bears a real relationship to the accompanying text and is not a pretext for commercial exploitation.
- A publisher’s profit motive, and the mere mention of retailers or advertisers, does not by itself convert editorial content into advertising under § 51.
- In New York, rights against unauthorized commercial exploitation of name or likeness are “wholly statutory” under Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51; there is no separate common-law right of publicity for the same conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that a magazine’s consumer-fashion column using a model’s photograph to illustrate a described product, even with pricing and store information, was protected editorial content outside N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51, and it further ruled that New York law does not allow a separate common-law right of publicity claim beyond the statutory scheme.


Stephano v. News Grp. Publ’ns, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 174, 474 N.E.2d 580, 485 N.Y.S.2d 220 (1984)