Attn: Poop Woman Kathy

I briefed this case (Costanza v Seinfeld) did I do any good, what else do I need to do?

Practice Brief:

Title:

Costanza v Seinfeld

181 Misc. 2nd 562, 693 N.Y.S. 2d 897

(Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 1999)

Parties:

P = Michael Costanza: A person that believes that his name and likeness are being used in a humiliating manner on a televison show (Seinfeld).

Ds = Jerry Seinfeld (Comedian), Larry David (Cocreator of Seinfeld), The National Broadcasting Company, Production Companies: People and Companies accused of using Costanza’s name and likeness.

Proc. History:

P sued for invasion of his privacy. Ds made a preanswer motion to dismiss.

Facts:

P argues that under sections 50 and 51 of New York’s Civil Rights law he should be compensated for the humiliation caused by the use of his image. Also that Mr. Costanza never provided written consent for this use of his name and likeness.

Ds argue under cases Howell v. New York Post. Co.; and Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., that the New York Court of Appeals has set precedent for not allowing common-law claims for invasion of privacy. Also that to impinge on a persons right to privacy their name and likeness must be used for advertising purposes without written consent. Also that the likeness of Mr. Costanza was never used for advertising purposes. And that in Hampton v. Guare, a similar case, the courts opinion was that “Works of fiction and satire do not fall within the narrow scope of the statutory phrases ‘advertising’ and ‘trade,’”

Issue:

Does New York provide a right to privacy with regards to the use of a name and likeness without written consent in the comedic presentation of a television show?

Holding:

No.

Rule:

New York Civil Rights Law does not provide for common-law claims for invasion of privacy against the use of a persons name and likeness in the development and production of a television show.

Reasoning:

The facts of the case show that Mr. Costanza’s written consent was not necessary to use his name and likeness. Although following the appeal of Roberson v Rochester Folding Box Co. sections 50 and 51 of New York Civil Rights Law were enacted to protect against the use of a persons name and likeness for advertising and trade purposes, the use of Mr. Costanza’s image in a work of both fiction and satire (The Seinfeld Show) does not fall within the scope of these laws.

Judgement: The claim must be dismissed.

Comments:

This case shows to a certain degree the limits imposed on Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, which apply specifically to trade and advertising.

Your Issue and Rule are a little off - adjust the Rule so that it answers the question posed in the Issue. Other than that, great job. How long did it take you?

Remember that this will get easier with time. Eventually you'll be able to write only what's needed to jog your memory of a particular case. While you may write down the rule and issue, the facts and parties sections will become smaller and (may) eventually disappear. But this is all up to you - whatever you need to do to make yourself comfortable in class and not freak out when called on.

Plus - you know that the majority of law school classes will not test you on the particular facts of individual cases. Keep this in mind when deciding how to spend your time and effort. It's usually the rule of law that professors are concerned with - that and your ability to apply that rule to a new set of facts.

Good work, eh.

Thanks buddy.

Remember if they're in better shape you have to lead them a little in case they try to run...

D: ROOTS

D: HOW ARE YOU

M: super fantastic greatnessness

D: PERFECT

M: shang tsungs ass

D: HAHAHAHA