Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc., 21 N.Y.2d 124 (1968)

A public figure can recover for an unauthorized presentation of their life if the presentation contains material and substantial falsifications, published with knowledge of the falsification or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Summary

Warren Spahn, a famous baseball player, sued author Milton Shapiro and publisher Julian Messner, Inc., for publishing an unauthorized biography, “The Warren Spahn Story.” Spahn alleged violations of New York’s Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, concerning the use of his name and likeness for commercial purposes without his consent. The court found that the biography contained significant fictionalizations of Spahn’s life. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction against publication and the award of damages, holding that the biography contained knowing and substantial falsifications published with reckless disregard for the truth, thus infringing on Spahn’s right to publicity.

Facts

Milton Shapiro wrote and Julian Messner, Inc. published “The Warren Spahn Story,” a biography aimed at juvenile readers. Shapiro admitted to using invented dialogue, imaginary incidents, and attributed thoughts and feelings in the book. Shapiro never interviewed Spahn, his family, or any of his baseball colleagues. His research consisted mainly of unverified newspaper and magazine clippings. The biography contained numerous inaccuracies and distortions of Spahn’s life, including false accounts of his childhood, his relationship with his father, his courtship, events during his marriage, and his military service.

Procedural History

The trial court found in favor of Spahn, issuing an injunction and awarding damages. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals initially affirmed but was subsequently ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Time, Inc. v. Hill. On reargument, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether a public figure can recover damages for an unauthorized biography that contains fictionalized elements, where the fictionalization constitutes knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

Holding

Yes, because the biography contained material and substantial falsifications made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, thus exceeding the permissible bounds of free speech and infringing on Spahn’s right to publicity.

Court’s Reasoning

The court acknowledged the need to balance the right of publicity with the constitutional protection of free speech, particularly in the context of biographies. Relying on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Time, Inc. v. Hill, the court held that a public figure can recover for an unauthorized presentation of their life only if the presentation contains material and substantial falsifications and was published with knowledge of such falsification or with reckless disregard for the truth. The court found that Shapiro’s biography was replete with invented dialogue, imaginary incidents, and attributed thoughts and feelings, all of which constituted knowing falsification. The court emphasized Shapiro’s minimal research and his failure to verify even readily available information. The court noted that even the defendant’s claimed defense of using standard literary techniques for children’s books failed, as the author had virtually no contact with the subject and made little effort to verify information. The court stated that granting the defendants a license to publish such knowing fictionalizations would be “destructive of an individual’s right…to be free of the commercial exploitation of his name and personality.” The court dismissed the defendant’s argument regarding defective pleading, finding no prejudice because the defense relied on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan at trial. The court emphasized the “all-pervasive” nature of the falsifications, supporting the finding of knowing falsity. The court quoted the lower court’s finding of “all-pervasive distortions, inaccuracies, invented dialogue, and the narration of happenings out of context”.