Brooke Shields v. Gross

New York Court of Appeals · 1983 · Contracts

58 N.Y.2d 338

Updated July 9, 2026

contractsinfantsminor contractsdisaffirmanceparental consentCivil Rights Law section 51privacywritten consent

Facts

In 1975, when plaintiff was 10 years old and working as a child model, she posed for defendant photographer in a series of nude bathtub photographs intended for a Playboy Press publication. Before the sessions, plaintiff's mother and legal guardian executed two written consents giving broad permission to use, reuse, publish, and republish the photographs for any purpose whatsoever and waiving approval rights. The photographs were later used in multiple publications and displays, and plaintiff and her mother knew of some of those uses; plaintiff's mother later obtained authorization from defendant so plaintiff could use the photos in her own book. In 1981, after learning of further publication and fearing additional uses, plaintiff sued under tort and contract theories and sought damages and an injunction.

Issue

May a minor model disaffirm an unrestricted written consent executed on her behalf by her parent and maintain an action under Civil Rights Law § 51 against the photographer for republication of her photographs? Also, are such consents invalid for lack of prior court approval under General Obligations Law § 3-105?

Rule

When Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 require the written consent of a minor's parent or guardian before use of the minor's picture for advertising or trade, a parental consent that complies with the statute is valid, binding on the infant, and not subject to the infant's common-law right of disaffirmance. The user's immunity is limited by the terms of the consent actually given.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Chicago, 13-year-old Maya Ortiz posed for a clothing catalog shoot. Before the session, her father and legal guardian signed a written consent allowing the photographer and assigns to use and republish Maya's photographs for any purpose whatsoever; at age 20, Maya sues under New York Civil Rights Law § 51 after the same photos appear in store posters.

What is the strongest argument for the photographer?

Explanation. Sections 50 and 51 allow prior written consent by the minor's parent or guardian. When such consent complies with the statute, it binds the minor and is not subject to later disaffirmance based on infancy. Because the use here falls within the broad written consent, the photographer has a defense.