Onassis v. Christian Dior — New York, Inc.
122 Misc. 2d 603 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a look-alike in a commercial advertisement that is intended to and does convey the likeness and identity of a living person without their consent violates that person's right of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. The statutory prohibition against using a person's 'portrait or picture' extends to any representation, including a photograph of a look-alike, that misappropriates an individual's identity for commercial purposes.
Facts:
- Christian Dior-New York, Inc., through its advertising agency, conceived a series of advertisements featuring a fictional, sophisticated trio known as 'the Diors.'
- For an ad depicting the 'wedding' of the Diors, the advertisers wanted to include well-known personalities to make the event appear 'legendary.'
- Knowing Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis would not consent to appear in a commercial advertisement, the advertisers hired the Ron Smith Celebrity Look-Alikes agency.
- The agency provided Barbara Reynolds, a secretary who bears a striking resemblance to Onassis.
- Reynolds was styled with appropriate hair, makeup, and accessories to enhance her resemblance to Onassis and was photographed as a guest at the fictional wedding.
- The advertisement, featuring Reynolds as the Onassis figure alongside actual celebrities Gene Shalit and Ruth Gordon, was published in several upscale magazines, including Esquire and The New Yorker.
- Onassis had a well-known policy of never permitting her name or likeness to be used for the promotion of commercial products.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis filed a complaint against Christian Dior-New York, Inc. and its advertising associates in the Supreme Court of New York, a trial-level court.
- Onassis moved for a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from any further use or distribution of the advertisement featuring the look-alike.
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 use of a look-alike's photograph in a commercial advertisement, intentionally styled to evoke the identity of a living person without their consent, constitute a violation of that person's statutory right of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51?
Opinions:
Majority - Edward J. Greenfield
Yes. The use of a look-alike's photograph in a commercial advertisement violates a person's statutory right of privacy. The court reasoned that New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, while requiring a strict construction, must be interpreted to fulfill their remedial purpose of protecting individuals from commercial exploitation. The statutory term 'portrait or picture' is not limited to an actual photograph but includes any representation recognizable as a likeness of the complaining individual, as established in cases like Binns v. Vitagraph Co. and Ali v. Playgirl, Inc. The court held that allowing the use of a look-alike would create an 'obvious loophole' to evade the statute, permitting advertisers to achieve by simulation what they could not by direct use. The law protects the essence of a person's identity from being misappropriated for profit, and the defendants' ad was designed to trade on the 'charisma, sophistication, [and] elegance' associated with Onassis's persona. The court rejected defenses based on free speech, noting this was purely commercial speech, and also dismissed the idea that Reynolds had an absolute right to use her own face when it was deliberately contrived to impersonate someone else for commercial gain.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the scope of New York's statutory right of privacy by extending the definition of 'portrait or picture' to include the use of look-alikes. It established that the law protects not just a person's literal image, but their entire persona and identity from unauthorized commercial appropriation. By closing the 'look-alike loophole,' the court prevented a simple method of circumventing the statute's intent, thereby strengthening protections for celebrities and public figures against exploitation. This case serves as a key precedent for claims involving the misappropriation of identity through means other than the use of an actual photograph.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Onassis v. Christian Dior — New York, Inc. (1984)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"