Source: https://creativelaw.co/circumstances-can-image-publicly-displayed-without-consent-right-privacy-new-york/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:47:14+00:00

Document:
We’ve all had our photograph taken, usually knowingly, but sometimes unknowingly. But imagine if you discovered a photograph of yourself on a billboard advertising a debt-consolidation company, or if you discovered a photograph of yourself in an art display in Times Square taken while you were sunbathing in your swimsuit at the beach. Under what circumstances can you restrict the use of your photograph, and under what circumstances are you entitled to financial compensation for its use?
You might be surprised to learn that there is no common law right to privacy in the State of New York. Instead, a limited statutory right to privacy is created by Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, which set forth specific instances in which the use of someone’s image without their consent is prohibited, as well as the penalties that may be imposed for violations. Determining whether there has been a violation begins with a review of the specific limitations placed on the rights to images and their uses as described in § 50 of the Civil Rights Law.
Civil Rights Law § 50 is fairly self-explanatory, in that it makes it a criminal offense to use the name, portrait or picture of someone for advertising or trade purposes without first obtaining that person’s written consent. The key language here is “advertising or trade purposes.” If someone is displaying your image for some other purpose, it is probably not a violation of the statute, and you are not eligible for relief under §§ 50 or 51 of the Civil Rights Law (for a discussion of what constitutes advertising or trade purposes with respect to displaying an image, you can read our article on that topic next week).
There are certain obvious instances that would qualify as “advertising or trade purposes,” such as the use of your image to sell products on a billboard or in a newspaper advertisement without your consent. This type of clear violation would make you eligible to bring an action for damages and to seek an injunction under Civil Rights Law § 51, which is discussed further below.
However, most disputes involve situations in which the violation may not be so evident. What if you paid to enter a museum, only to find pictures of yourself hanging on the walls, and collages of your image on various mugs and gifts available for sale in the museum’s gift shop? In 2000, this very scenario happened to Charlotte Dabney at the Whitney Museum of American Art.
A photographer had taken a picture of her years before, and an artist used her image, without her knowledge or consent, to create artistic collages. Dabney sued the museum and the artist, and lost. A Federal District Court Judge held that the use of a person’s image in a work of art is a constitutionally protected form of free speech exempt from Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. In other words, regardless of whether you have consent, you can use someone’s name, portrait or picture in a work of art (a discussion of what qualifies as a work of art will be the focus of a future article).
Just as §§ 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law place no restrictions on works of art, they also place no restrictions on news or editorial publications. A newspaper, magazine or editorial website can post a picture of you to help sell its publications without your consent, as long as a reasonable relationship exists between your image and the subject matter contained in the article. So, for example, a reporter for a newspaper can take a picture of you on the beach in your bathing suit, without your consent, and print it on the front cover of the newspaper, as long as the story accompanying it reasonably relates to your image.
Sometimes there are circumstances in which the publisher believes he or she has permission to publish your image, but is mistaken. In these circumstances, the publisher of the image can still be held liable. If someone gives verbal permission for his of her image to be displayed for advertising or trade purposes, for example, the publisher of the image can be held liable under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 if that person later changes his or her mind. This is because § 50 of the Civil Rights Law requires that consent must be given in writing if an image is used for advertising or trade purposes. This is one legal quagmire that a well written and executed model release form would avoid. However, it should be noted that prior oral consent often serves to reduce any award of punitive damages if a model release form was not used.
Even if written consent is given, the publisher must also ensure that the photograph is published in a manner outlined in the contract that gives consent. For example, if a person signs a model release granting use of his or her image for advertising purposes for a period of one year, and the photograph is published after the expiration of that year, the publisher can be held liable under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51.
Even in situations where a publisher legitimately purchases a photograph from a stock photography company to use specifically for an ad, the publisher can be held liable if the stock photography company failed to properly acquire written consent from the person whose image is displayed. Essentially, if someone knowingly uses someone else’s name, portrait, or picture for advertising or trade purposes, even if they are mistaken as to consent or use, they can still be held liable.
Once liability is established, Civil Rights Law § 51 provides the legal authority to maintain an equitable action for an injunction to remove the image, and to pursue punitive damages against the person or company who used the name, portrait or picture without consent.
It’s interesting to note that Civil Rights Law § 51 provides for certain exceptions to liability that Civil Rights Law § 50 does not. For example, anyone “practicing the profession of photography” is allowed to display photographs they have taken of others for trade purposes in furtherance of their photography business, regardless of whether a signed release was obtained. However, if the subject of a photograph notifies the photographer in writing that he or she does not want the image to be displayed in connection with the photographer’s business, and a release has not been obtained, the photographer has a duty to immediately cease publication of the image. If the photographer continues to display that person’s image, he or she may be liable for damages under § 51 of the Civil Rights Law.
Civil Rights Law § 51 provides that a jury must determine whether damages will be awarded, and must also determine the amount of damages, if any. Additionally, there is a one-year statute of limitations for Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 claims. The time to file a claim runs from the date of the most recent violation of the statute, which is usually the date the offending material was first published.
So if someone takes a picture of me, then paints it, and sells it to a museum, I have no right to any of the money? That seems a bit much. Not that I am ever in the position to get photographed. haha I tend to avoid the inner city. I swear there must be a lot of people out there who do not know this. I am glad i found your blog, learning a lot!

References: § 50
 § 50
 § 51
 § 50
 § 51
 § 51
 § 50
 § 51
 § 51