Blumenthal v. Picture Classics, Inc.

235 A.D. 570, 257 N.Y.S. 800, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8018
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 235 A.D. 570 (Blumenthal v. Picture Classics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blumenthal v. Picture Classics, Inc., 235 A.D. 570, 257 N.Y.S. 800, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinions

McAvoy, J.

Plaintiff sues for an injunction to restrain the defendants from unlawfully exhibiting her picture for trade purposes in contravention of sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law and for damages in connection therewith.

. The defendant, Picture Classics, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the business of producing and distributing motion pictures, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, sold, distributed and displayed for trade purposes motion pictures of her, depicting the said plaintiff in the act of selling bread and rolls to passersby on Orchard street in the city of New York.

The motion picture was shown on the screen of various local motion picture theatres throughout the city and was also exhibited in the vicinity where plaintiff resides.

The particular scene in which the plaintiff appears in said motion picture was a front .view closeup of her and was intended to show her alone in the act of vending her goods for sale.

Sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law give to the plaintiff an absolute right to have the defendants enjoined from using her picture for trade purposes even though her trade brings her into public view.

The picture of the plaintiff produced and exhibited by the defendants was used for trade purposes and solely for the benefit of the said defendants.

We think plaintiff was entitled to the relief allowed.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Merrell and Martin, JJ., concur; Finch, P. J., and O’Malley, J., dissent and vote to reverse and deny the motion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Habush v. Cannon
2013 WI App 34 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2013)
Nieves v. Home Box Office, Inc.
30 A.D.3d 1143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Gaeta v. Home Box Office
169 Misc. 2d 500 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1996)
Mendonsa v. Time Inc.
678 F. Supp. 967 (D. Rhode Island, 1988)
Schwartz v. Hebrew National, Inc.
130 Misc. 2d 942 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
Onassis v. Christian Dior — New York, Inc.
122 Misc. 2d 603 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)
University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
207 N.E.2d 508 (New York Court of Appeals, 1965)
Fleischer v. W. P. I. X. Inc.
30 Misc. 2d 17 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Jacova v. Southern Radio and Television Company
83 So. 2d 34 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1955)
Donahue v. Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corp.
272 P.2d 177 (Utah Supreme Court, 1954)
Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, Inc.
281 A.D. 240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1953)
Gautier v. Pro-Football, Inc.
107 N.E.2d 485 (New York Court of Appeals, 1952)
Gautier v. Pro-Football, Inc.
278 A.D. 431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)
Sidis v. FR Pub. Corporation
113 F.2d 806 (Second Circuit, 1940)
Lahiri v. Daily Mirror, Inc.
162 Misc. 776 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
Blumenthal v. Picture Classics, Inc.
236 A.D. 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 A.D. 570, 257 N.Y.S. 800, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumenthal-v-picture-classics-inc-nyappdiv-1932.