Beverley v. Choices Women's Medical Center, Inc.
587 N.E.2d 275, 78 N.Y.2d 745, 19 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1724 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Unauthorized use of a person's name, portrait, or picture for a for-profit entity's advertising purposes violates Civil Rights Law § 51, even if the publication also contains matters of public interest or the person is a limited-purpose public figure, especially when the publication is primarily an advertisement and not a news medium.
Facts:
- Dr. Cordia Beverley is a Board certified physician specializing in internal medicine and gastroenterology.
- Choices Women’s Medical Center, Inc. (Choices) is a for-profit corporation operating a medical facility that provides family planning services.
- In 1983, Dr. Beverley attended the Regional Conference of Women in Medicine, where a joint photo of her and Dr. Lena Edwards was taken.
- In 1984, Choices produced 10,000 copies of a 1985 calendar titled 'Women — Choosing to Make a Difference,' budgeting approximately $7,000 for its printing as an 'advertising and promotion' expense.
- Choices distributed the calendars free of charge to its patients, media organizations, women’s organizations, medical facilities, health insurance plan centers, and referring physicians.
- Each page of the calendar prominently featured Choices’ name, logo, address, and telephone number, and the calendar included laudatory descriptions of Choices' services.
- The June 1985 page of the calendar featured the joint photo of Dr. Beverley and Dr. Edwards with a caption identifying Dr. Beverley by name and professional title.
- Choices purchased the photo from a photographer but did not seek or obtain Dr. Beverley’s consent to use her photo, name, or professional title in its calendar.
- Dr. Beverley had never had any association with Choices.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Cordia Beverley initiated an action against Choices Women’s Medical Center, Inc. in Supreme Court (the trial court), alleging invasion of privacy under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, and defamation.
- Choices moved to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment; Dr. Beverley cross-moved for summary judgment on her statutory privacy claim.
- The Supreme Court granted Dr. Beverley’s motion for summary judgment on the privacy claim and denied Choices’ motion to dismiss the defamation claim.
- Choices appealed to the Appellate Division (the intermediate appellate court). The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court’s decision by dismissing the defamation claim and remitted the privacy claim for a trial on damages, concluding that the calendar was used for 'advertising purposes.'
- Following a trial on damages in the Supreme Court, Dr. Beverley was awarded $50,000 in compensatory and $25,000 in punitive damages.
- Choices appealed the damages award to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the judgment.
- Choices then sought and was granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the unauthorized use of a Dr. Cordia Beverley's photo, name, and professional title in Choices Women’s Medical Center, Inc.'s promotional calendar constitute 'advertising purposes' under Civil Rights Law § 51, notwithstanding the calendar's public interest themes or Dr. Beverley's status as a limited-purpose public figure?
Opinions:
Majority - Bellacosa, J.
Yes, the unauthorized use of Dr. Beverley's photo, name, and professional title in Choices' calendar constitutes 'advertising purposes' under Civil Rights Law § 51, and the public interest/newsworthiness and public figure doctrines do not provide an exemption from liability. The Court determined that Choices' calendar was an advertising medium and promotional publication as a matter of law, due to the pervasive and prominent placement of Choices’ branding (name, logo, address, telephone number) on each page, its wide distribution to targeted audiences, and the glowing characterizations of Choices’ medical services. These elements clearly demonstrate the calendar's design to preserve existing patronage and solicit new clients. Dr. Beverley’s name, photo, and professional title were central to this commercial message and directly related to Choices’ advertised medical services, making their use actionable. The court rejected Choices’ argument that the calendar’s theme of women’s movement history, a matter of public interest, provided First Amendment protection. It emphasized that a commercial advertiser cannot circumvent statutory privacy protection by 'wrapping its advertising message in the cloak of public interest,' especially when the publication is 'on its face, an advertisement' and the entity is not a media enterprise. Furthermore, the public figure doctrine did not apply because the use was a 'deliberate later publication of a no longer current news item in an individual firm’s advertising literature,' rather than a simultaneous report by a public medium. Dr. Beverley possessed a broad statutory privacy interest and the right not to be associated with or identified with commercial enterprises without her consent.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of privacy rights under New York's Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, particularly concerning commercial exploitation of identity. It establishes that for-profit entities cannot claim protection under public interest or public figure exceptions when a publication is overtly commercial advertising. The ruling reinforces the strong statutory protection afforded to individuals against unauthorized commercial use of their likeness, even if the advertisement incorporates socially relevant themes. This precedent helps prevent businesses from leveraging newsworthy topics to promote services without consent, ensuring that individuals retain control over their image in commercial contexts.
