Stephano v. News Group: New York's Statute-Only Regime and the Newsworthiness Line

New York's high court held a model's photo in a consumer fashion column was newsworthy, not trade use, and that sections 50 and 51 are the exclusive remedy.

By Lidiia Levitska  ·  July 11, 2026
An open glossy magazine showing a men's fashion feature with a model in a jacket
Stephano v. News Group held that a consumer-interest fashion column was a newsworthy use, not advertising, under New York's privacy statute. Shutterstock
Educational content, not legal advice. This article explains general legal concepts. It does not create an attorney–client relationship. For your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

In Stephano v. News Group Publications, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 174, 474 N.E.2d 580, 485 N.Y.S.2d 220 (1984), the New York Court of Appeals delivered what remains the clearest map of New York’s approach to identity rights. Two features define that approach and set it apart from California’s dual system. First, New York protects a person’s name and likeness only through statute, sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law, and recognizes no common-law right of publicity. Second, the statutory prohibition reaches only uses “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade,” which the courts have paired with a broad newsworthiness exception. Stephano applied both principles to a professional model whose photograph ran in a magazine’s consumer-interest fashion column, and it held that neither principle helped him.

At a glance

  • Case: Stephano v. News Group Publications, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 174, 474 N.E.2d 580, 485 N.Y.S.2d 220 (1984).
  • Decided: December 20, 1984 by the New York Court of Appeals, which reversed the Appellate Division’s denial of summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
  • Holding: A model’s photograph in a magazine’s consumer-interest fashion column was a newsworthy use, not a use for advertising or trade, and New York’s statute is the exclusive remedy, foreclosing any common-law right of publicity.
  • Significance: The definitive statement of New York’s statute-only regime and its broad newsworthiness exception, the sharpest contrast with California’s combined statutory and common-law system.
  • Status: Final judgment of New York’s highest court.

New York’s statutory-only regime

The story of New York’s identity law begins with a refusal. In Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N.Y. 538 (1902), the Court of Appeals declined to recognize a common-law right of privacy for a young woman whose portrait had been used without consent to advertise flour. Public reaction was sharp, and the legislature responded in 1903 by enacting sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law. Section 50 makes it a misdemeanor to use a living person’s name, portrait, or picture for advertising or trade purposes without written consent; section 51 provides a civil action for injunction and damages.

That legislative origin has a lasting doctrinal consequence. Because the legislature occupied the field by statute after the courts declined to act at common law, New York has consistently held that sections 50 and 51 are the sole source of protection. There is no separate common-law right of privacy or publicity in New York. A plaintiff must fit within the statute or has no claim at all. Stephano reaffirmed that exclusivity in plain terms, rejecting the plaintiff’s attempt to plead a common-law right of publicity alongside the statutory claim.

Tony Stephano was a professional model who agreed to be photographed for the defendant’s magazine. He understood, he said, that the photographs were for a particular article. One of the images then appeared in a different feature, a regular column that highlighted noteworthy consumer items. The column ran his picture wearing a bomber-style jacket and identified the garment, its maker, the approximate price, and where a reader could buy it. Stephano contended that he had not consented to this particular use and that, unlike the editorial article he expected, the column functioned as promotion. He sued under sections 50 and 51 and also asserted a common-law right of publicity, claiming the column was a use for trade or advertising.

The dispute thus presented two questions. Was a consumer-interest column that named products and prices a use “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade” within the statute? And could Stephano supplement the statute with a common-law publicity theory that might reach uses the statute did not? The Court of Appeals answered no to both.

Newsworthiness beyond hard news

The court grounded its analysis in the long-settled principle that the statutory terms “advertising” and “trade” do not reach the dissemination of newsworthy matter. A newspaper or magazine may publish a person’s photograph in connection with an item of public interest without violating the statute, because such use is not for trade within the meaning of sections 50 and 51. The First Amendment concerns behind that principle are evident: a broad reading of “trade” would let the privacy statute swallow ordinary journalism, since publishers sell magazines for profit.

The important move in Stephano was the court’s refusal to confine newsworthiness to hard news. It held that the exception extends to articles of consumer interest, including fashion and product information, and not merely to reports of political events or grave social trends. A column that tells readers what is being worn, who makes it, and what it costs conveys information of legitimate public interest. That the information also happens to benefit the manufacturers whose products are featured does not convert the article into advertising. The photograph also bore a real relationship to the newsworthy content of the column, and under the settled rule the court restated, a picture illustrating an article on a matter of public interest is not a use for trade or advertising unless it has no real relationship to the article or the article is an advertisement in disguise. The court framed that exception as a reading of the statute that gives effect to legislative intent, one that reflects federal and state constitutional concerns for the free dissemination of news rather than a freestanding constitutional test.

The “advertising in disguise” limit and the exclusivity holding

The court was careful to preserve a boundary. Newsworthiness does not immunize a use that is really an advertisement in disguise, one where ostensibly editorial content is in fact a paid or self-interested promotion for a particular product or for the publication itself. If the column had been a covert advertisement, the outcome could have differed. But Stephano’s showing was entirely circumstantial: the column carried the kind of product detail an advertisement would carry, and some of the stores named had advertised in the magazine before. The court held that those facts were not enough to raise a jury question on disguised advertising, and it declined to strip the item of its newsworthy character merely because it identified specific goods and vendors.

Having resolved the statutory claim against Stephano, the court disposed of his common-law theory on a categorical ground. New York recognizes no common-law right of publicity; the statutory right is exclusive. A plaintiff cannot escape the statute’s newsworthiness exception by relabeling the claim as a common-law appropriation of publicity value. This holding is the case’s structural core. It means that in New York, the entire analysis of identity claims runs through sections 50 and 51 and their judicially developed exceptions, without the additional common-law layer that California and many other states supply.

Open questions

  • When does editorial content become an advertisement in disguise? The court preserved this limit but gave little guidance on how to distinguish genuine consumer journalism from covert promotion in closer cases.
  • How broadly does consumer interest extend? By treating fashion and product information as newsworthy, the court opened a wide field, leaving uncertain where consumer interest ends and pure commercial exploitation begins.
  • What relationship between photo and article suffices? The “real relationship” test governs, but its application to loosely connected images and stock illustrations continues to generate litigation.
  • How does exclusivity interact with newer statutes? New York later added a separate post-mortem right for deceased performers, and how that provision fits the statute-only framework of Stephano is a distinct question.

Implications for creators and businesses

  • In New York, plead the statute. There is no common-law right of publicity to fall back on; a claim must satisfy sections 50 and 51, and framing matters accordingly.
  • Newsworthiness is broad. Editorial coverage of consumer topics, including fashion and products, is generally protected, so publishers have wide latitude to feature people in genuine news and feature content.
  • The disguise exception is the pressure point. Content that crosses from journalism into covert advertising can lose newsworthiness protection, so publications should keep editorial and promotional functions distinct.
  • Consent should track the intended use. Because disputes often arise when a photo migrates from the expected article to another feature, models and subjects should define the scope of consent in writing.

Frequently asked questions

What is unusual about New York’s right of publicity? New York has no common-law right of publicity or privacy. Its only protection is statutory, in sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law, which bar the use of a living person’s name or picture for advertising or trade without written consent. Stephano confirmed that this statute is the exclusive remedy, so no separate common-law claim exists in New York.

Why did the model lose in Stephano? Tony Stephano’s photograph appeared in a magazine’s consumer-interest fashion column that described a jacket, its maker, price, and where to buy it. The Court of Appeals held that this was a newsworthy item rather than a trade or advertising use, so it fell within the statute’s newsworthiness exception. Because the use was not for trade or advertising, it did not violate sections 50 and 51.

Does newsworthiness cover consumer and fashion content? Yes. The court held that the newsworthiness exception is not limited to hard news about politics or social affairs. It also covers articles of consumer interest, including fashion and product information, so long as the item is a genuine news feature and not an advertisement disguised as editorial content.

Authorities and sources

Related guides

Lidiia Levitska
About the Author

Lidiia Levitska

International Intellectual Property Attorney

Lidiia Levitska focuses on intellectual property dispute resolution, policy, and advisory work across international institutions and government bodies. From 2021 to 2025 she served at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), managing arbitration cases and overseeing compliance with the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), and earlier led IP policy research as a Senior Policy Officer at the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine. She holds an LL.M. in International Intellectual Property Law from Chicago-Kent College of Law and an M.A. in Information Technology Law from the University of Tartu, and was admitted to the Ukrainian Bar in 2019.

More about Lidiia →