Arrington v. New York Times Co., 55 N.Y.2d 433 (1982)
New York’s statutory right to privacy under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 does not extend to the publication of a person’s photograph in connection with a matter of public interest unless the photograph has no real relationship to the article or the article is an advertisement in disguise.
Summary
Clarence Arrington sued The New York Times Company and others after his photograph was used on the cover of the New York Times Magazine to illustrate an article about the Black middle class. Arrington claimed the article presented views he did not share and subjected him to public scorn. The Court of Appeals held that the use of Arrington’s photograph was not a violation of New York’s Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 because the article concerned a matter of public interest, and the photograph bore a reasonable relationship to the article. However, the Court found that the photographer and photo agency could be liable for commercializing Arrington’s photograph without his consent.
Facts
The New York Times Magazine published an article entitled “The Black Middle Class: Making It,” featuring a photograph of Clarence Arrington on its cover. Arrington had no knowledge that the photograph had been taken or that it would be used in connection with the article. The article discussed the role and perceptions of the Black middle class, including the idea that this group was becoming removed from less fortunate members of their race. Arrington, a financial analyst, felt the article’s views were insulting and subjected him to ridicule, either because people thought he shared those views or because they assumed he had become a professional model.
Procedural History
Arrington sued the New York Times Company, the photographer Gianfranco Gorgoni, Contact Press Images, Inc. (the photographic agency), and Robert Pledge (Contact’s president). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Special Term dismissed the complaint against all defendants, but granted Arrington leave to amend the complaint against the Times based on a constitutional right to privacy. The Appellate Division modified the Special Term’s order by deleting the leave to amend, finding no common-law or constitutional right to privacy applied. Arrington appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the publication of Arrington’s photograph in connection with an article of public interest violates New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51.
2. Whether the photographer and photographic agency could be held liable for violating New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 by selling Arrington’s photograph to the New York Times.
3. Whether Arrington’s constitutional right to privacy was violated.
Holding
1. No, because a picture illustrating an article on a matter of public interest is not considered used for the purposes of trade or advertising within the prohibition of the statute unless it has no real relationship to the article or unless the article is an advertisement in disguise.
2. Yes, because the photographer and photographic agency may have commercialized the photograph independently from the publisher’s immunity for publishing matters of public interest.
3. No, because there was no state action involved.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reviewed the history and scope of New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, noting that these statutes were enacted in response to Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., which denied the existence of a common-law right to privacy in New York. The statutes were narrowly drafted to encompass only the commercial use of an individual’s name or likeness. The Court emphasized that it has consistently adhered to the position that “there exists no so-called common-law right to privacy” in New York (Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 493, 497, n. 2). The Court balanced the protection against invasion of privacy for purposes of “advertising” or “trade” with the constitutional values of free speech and free press. The Court cited Murray v. New York Mag. Co., stating that “ ‘[a] picture illustrating an article on a matter of public interest is not considered used for the purposes of trade or advertising within the prohibition of the statute * * * unless it has no real relationship to the article * * * or unless the article is an advertisement in disguise.’ ” The court found that the article concerned a matter of public interest, and the photograph bore a reasonable relationship to the article. However, the Court found that the photographer and photo agency could be liable for commercializing Arrington’s photograph without his consent. The Court rejected Arrington’s “false light” claim, expressing concern that it could compromise the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press. Finally, the Court rejected Arrington’s claim based on an alleged constitutional right to privacy, because no state action was involved.