Myskina v. Conde Nast Publications, Inc.
386 F. Supp. 2d 409 (2005)
Rule of Law:
Under New York law, a clear and unambiguous written release consenting to the editorial use of photographs is a fully integrated contract that bars the introduction of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements to vary its terms under the parol evidence rule. Furthermore, the sale and subsequent publication of a public figure's photograph is not an actionable use for "purposes of trade" under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50-51 if the photograph bears a real relationship to a newsworthy article or a matter of public interest.
Facts:
- In July 2002, Condé Nast, publisher of GQ magazine, arranged a photoshoot with professional tennis player Anastasia Myskina for its annual "Sports" issue.
- Myskina attended the photoshoot with her agent's administrative assistant, Kenneth Gantman.
- Myskina alleges that a Condé Nast editor orally assured her that only specific 'Lady Godiva' themed photographs would be published in the October 2002 GQ issue and nowhere else.
- Before the shoot, Myskina signed a standard release form which stated she "irrevocably consents to the use of [her] name and the pictures taken of [her]... for editorial purposes."
- The photographer, Mark Seliger, also took several topless photographs of Myskina, allegedly after she consented on the condition that they were "for himself" and would not be published.
- After GQ published the 'Lady Godiva' photo as planned, Seliger, through his syndication agent Corbis, licensed other photographs from the shoot, including the topless ones, to the Russian magazine Medved.
- In July/August 2004, shortly after Myskina won the French Open, Medved published the topless photographs alongside an article about her career, her victory, and her personal life.
Procedural Posture:
- Anastasia Myskina filed a diversity action against Condé Nast Publications, Inc., Mark Seliger, and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Myskina's complaint alleged violations of New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, misappropriation, unjust enrichment, negligence, and breach of contract.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
- Because the parties submitted affidavits and other exhibits outside of the pleadings, the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.
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 a signed model release form, granting irrevocable consent for the editorial use of all photographs from a photoshoot, preclude claims under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51 and for breach of contract based on an alleged prior oral agreement that purported to limit publication to a single magazine issue?
Opinions:
Majority - Mukasey, District Judge
No. A signed, unambiguous model release form constitutes a binding and integrated contract that cannot be modified by prior oral agreements, and the subsequent publication of the photographs falls under the newsworthiness exception to New York's privacy statutes. The court held that the parol evidence rule bars admission of the alleged oral agreements between Myskina and the defendants because those agreements directly contradict the plain and broad terms of the written Release she signed. The Release, which grants consent for all photos to be used for "editorial purposes," is a fully integrated agreement. Myskina is bound by the contract she signed, regardless of her claims that she did not read it, did not understand it due to a language barrier, or does not recall signing it. Furthermore, the court found that the use of the photographs in Medved was not for "purposes of trade" under N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. Instead, it fell within the broad newsworthiness and public interest exceptions. Myskina's recent French Open victory made her a figure of public interest, and the photographs bore a "real relationship" to the newsworthy article about her. Finally, Myskina's common law claims for misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and negligence were dismissed as they are preempted by the statutory framework of the New York Civil Rights Law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength and finality of written model release forms under the parol evidence rule, making it exceedingly difficult for a party to later claim that oral promises limited the scope of the written consent. It underscores that parties are bound by the contracts they sign, even in the face of language barriers or failure to read the document. The case also provides a robust application of New York's newsworthiness exception, affirming that the media has broad latitude to publish photographs of public figures when they are used in connection with a matter of legitimate public interest, thereby protecting publishers and photographers from right of publicity claims in editorial contexts.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Myskina v. Conde Nast Publications, Inc. (2005)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"