Essay On John Goldfarb Please Come Home

There is no line drawn or test to be administered to decide whether or not something qualifies as an “artistic expression” in New York as there might be in other states such as California. But, it does not take much to qualify something as a “form of expression” in New York, for all the work must do is convey some ideas or feelings of the artist to the intended audience. See e.g., University of Notre Dame Du Lac, 256 N.Y.S.2d at 301 (despite Twentieth Century-Fox using the University of Notre Dame’s name, logo, and image without the university’s consent, the court allowed for the release and distribution of the movie and book, both entitled “John Goldfarb, Please Come Home,” which express the author’s feelings toward college football, thereby
Compare Finger v. Omni Publishing International, 566 N.E.2d 141 (N.Y. 1990) (court approved Omni Publishing’s use of a family photo without the family’s consent in the June 1988 issue of the Omni magazine because the photograph was used “to illustrate a related news article on fertility…a topic of legitimate public interest… within the ‘newsworthiness exception’ to the prohibitions of Civil Rights Law”), and Foster, 7 N.Y.S.3d at 100 (Svenson’s images of a family taken without the family’s consent “themselves constitute the work of art, and art work is protected by the First Amendment, any advertising undertaken in connection with the promotion of the art work was permitted”), and Booth v. Curtis Pub. Co., 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 742 (App. Div.1962) (Booth’s ruling was reversed because the Appellate Division saw that “incidental advertising related to the sale and dissemination of the news medium itself may not… invoke the statute’s penalties”), with Beverley v. Choices Women’s Med. Ctr., Inc., 587 N.E.2d 275 (N.Y. 1991) (the plaintiff won her case against Choices because they included her picture in a calendar without her consent, and the medical center’s “name, logo, address and telephone number on each page… glowing characterizations and
Compare Hoepker, 200 F. Supp. 2d at 353 (plaintiff was allowed to sell images of the Kruger Composite on trinkets in the gift shop without Dabney’s consent owing to the fact that “Dabney’s image was affixed to various gift items not to flaunt her visage, but because the gift items reproduced the Kruger Composite, a work of art displayed by the Whitney”), and ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 936 (despite selling his original art work representing the exact likeness of Tiger Woods as mass-produced posters, the district court granted summary judgment to the artist because “celebrities have come to symbolize certain ideas and values in our society and have become a valuable means of expression in our culture”), with Brinkley v. Casablancas, 438 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1011 (App. Div. 1981) (Brinkley was able to enjoin Casablanca’s production and sale of a poster depicting the plaintiff because she had not given consent and despite being a newsworthy figure, the newsworthiness and public concern exemption “privilege does not extend to commercialization of [her] personality through a form of treatment distinct from the dissemination of news or information”), and Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for