Shields v. Gross, 58 N.Y.2d 338 (1983)
Under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51, a written consent for the use of a minor’s image obtained from the minor’s parent or guardian is binding and cannot be disaffirmed by the minor, precluding a subsequent action for invasion of privacy based on that use.
Summary
Brooke Shields, a child model, sought to disaffirm consents her mother had signed allowing photographer Gary Gross to use nude photos of her. Shields claimed that the consents were invalid, and Gross’s continued use of the photos violated her right to privacy. The New York Court of Appeals held that because Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 specifically allow a parent or guardian to consent on behalf of a minor, such consent is binding and cannot be disaffirmed. This decision balances the rights of minors with the needs of industries that employ them, providing certainty to those who rely on parental consent.
Facts
When Brooke Shields was 10 years old, her mother, Teri Shields, signed consents allowing photographer Gary Gross to take nude photographs of Brooke in a bathtub for a Playboy Press publication. The consents were unrestricted regarding time and use. The photos were used in “Sugar and Spice” and other publications, including a large display in New York City. Shields later used the photos in a book about herself, with her mother obtaining authorization from Gross. Years later, disturbed by the publication of the photos in a French magazine, Shields attempted to buy the negatives and then sued Gross, seeking to prevent further use of the photos.
Procedural History
The trial court initially granted a preliminary injunction but later dismissed the complaint, finding the consents unrestricted. However, the court permanently enjoined Gross from using the photographs in pornographic publications. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, enjoining Gross from using the pictures for advertising or trade. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether an infant model may disaffirm a prior unrestricted consent executed on her behalf by her parent and maintain an action pursuant to section 51 of the Civil Rights Law against her photographer for republication of photographs of her?
Holding
No, because under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, a written consent obtained from a minor’s parent or guardian is binding and cannot be disaffirmed by the minor.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that New York’s Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, enacted in response to the lack of a common-law right to privacy, created a statutory right to privacy. The statute explicitly allows a parent or guardian to provide written consent on behalf of a minor, which then bars a subsequent civil action. The court emphasized that the Legislature has the power to abrogate an infant’s common-law right to disaffirm contracts, and in this case, it did so by creating a specific statutory framework for consent in the context of privacy rights. The court noted the practical implications for industries employing child models: “Sections 50 and 51 as we interpret them serve the same purpose, to bring certainty to an important industry which necessarily uses minors for its work.” The court distinguished child performers from child models, noting that the procedural requirements for court approval of contracts for performing artists under General Obligations Law § 3-105 are impractical for the typical child model’s career. The court stated: “Given the nature of the employment, it is entirely reasonable for the Legislature to substitute the parents’ judgment and approval of what is best for their child for that of a court.” The court further clarified that if a parent wishes to limit the publicity of their child, they must specify the limitations in the initial consent. Citing Welch v. Mr. Christmas, the court noted, “a defendant’s immunity from a claim for invasion of privacy is no broader than the consent executed to him.”