Defendant, a photographer, took a photo of a Hasidic Jew walking on the streets of New York City, without permission. This photo was included in an advertised and well-publicized exhibit open to the public, and some of the publications and reviews of the exhibit included a copy of this photo. In addition, a few copies of the picture were sold for amounts between $20,000 and $30,000. The subject of the picture sued the photographer for violating civil rights laws which bar the unauthorized use of another's likeness in a commercial venture. He alleged also that this photo violated his religious beliefs. In addition to finding that plaintiff's time to sue had expired, the court agreed with the photographer that the civil rights laws at issues were applicable only to bar an unauthorized use in connection with advertising and/or trade. Because the photos were art and not advertising or trade they were therefore excluded from these laws. The court held also that the photo was protected free speech even though significant sales were made, noting that the fact that profits were earned did not defeat the defense of free speech.
Connect
Contact Us
Topics
Search
Recent Entries
May 5, 2012 Do the Names Potenza, Turanza and Milanza Confuse You? An appellate decision from the Federal Circuit finds that the term Milanza is confusing when...
March 14, 2012 How Much of Your Information Is Available to the Public? I don't usually comment on these issues, but a recent article at Findlaw raises red...
March 5, 2012 Incomplete LLC Documents Invite Lawsuits As readers here know, we have discussed, as far back as 2007, the importance of...
February 9, 2012 Do You See Starbucks When You Read Charbucks? In an ongoing litigation between Starbucks and an outfit called Black Bear Micro Brewery, the...
February 7, 2012 New York State Gyms Are Required to Have a Defibrillator on Site, But Must They Use Them? Gregory Miglino, Sr., passed out at a gym one morning. While 911 was summoned, a...
January 16, 2012 Second Department Joins Third and Fourth Departments in Deciding That Revised Adverse Possession Laws Are Not Applied Retroactively In Hogan v. Kelly, the Second Department decided that the 2008 changes to the Real...
Monthly Archives
- May 2012 (1)
- March 2012 (2)
- February 2012 (2)
- January 2012 (2)
- November 2011 (3)
- August 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (3)
- May 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (3)
- October 2010 (3)
- March 2010 (3)
- January 2010 (1)
- December 2009 (5)
- November 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (1)
- July 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (2)
- May 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (1)
- October 2008 (2)
- September 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (1)
- March 2008 (1)
- February 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (1)
- December 2007 (3)
- October 2007 (2)
- March 2007 (2)
- December 2006 (1)
- November 2006 (1)
- June 2006 (1)
- April 2006 (2)
- March 2006 (1)
- February 2006 (3)
- October 2005 (1)
- September 2005 (1)
- July 2005 (2)
- May 2005 (1)
- April 2005 (1)
- January 2005 (1)
- December 2004 (2)
- October 2004 (1)
- July 2004 (1)
- June 2004 (3)
- May 2004 (1)
- April 2004 (5)
Legal Blogs
- New York Business Litigation Lawyer Blog (Silber Law Firm)
