Porco v. Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 04072
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2021Background
- Christopher Porco was convicted of murdering his father and attempting to murder his mother; Lifetime produced a docudrama titled "Romeo Killer: The Chris Porco Story" dramatizing the crime, investigation and trial.
- Plaintiffs (Christopher and Joan Porco) sued under Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51, alleging commercial, nonconsensual use of their names/likenesses because the film and its promotion exploited their personas.
- Lifetime moved for summary judgment, arguing the film addressed newsworthy events and any dramatization was reasonably related to that public-interest subject.
- The film is a dramatization that recreated dialogue, used flashbacks, composite characters and staged scenes, but included on-screen disclaimers that it was "based on a true story" and a "dramatization" with fictionalized elements.
- Supreme Court denied the motion as raising questions of material and substantial fictionalization; the Appellate Division reversed, holding the film fell within the newsworthiness exception and granting summary judgment for defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the film is a "materially and substantially fictitious" biography such that Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 apply | Film materially and substantially fictionalized plaintiffs' roles, amounting to an invented biography trading on their personae | Film dramatizes newsworthy events; any fictionalization is acknowledged and reasonably related to public interest | Film was newsworthy, not so pervasively fictionalized; summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether the dramatization misled viewers into believing the depiction was wholly accurate | Inaccuracies and offensive portrayals misrepresent plaintiffs and exploit them commercially | The film contains clear disclaimers and does not present itself as unalloyed truth | Disclaimers and documentary framing prevented a finding that viewers would be misled |
| Whether promotional/advertising materials constituted actionable commercial use or implied endorsement | Promotional materials used plaintiffs' names/likenesses without consent to market the film | Promotional materials are ancillary to the protected film and do not imply plaintiff endorsement | Promotional materials were ancillary and not actionable under §§ 50–51 |
| Whether plaintiffs may pursue common-law false-light or other privacy torts beyond §§ 50–51 | Plaintiffs effectively seek relief for false-light harm | New York recognizes privacy protection exclusively through Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 | False-light/common-law privacy claims are unavailable; remedy is limited to §§ 50–51 |
Key Cases Cited
- Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publishing, 94 N.Y.2d 436 (N.Y. 2000) (defines statutory privacy scope and newsworthiness exception)
- Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1967) (First Amendment limits on privacy claims about newsworthy matters)
- Lohan v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 31 N.Y.3d 111 (N.Y. 2018) (statutory right targets commercial use of name/likeness)
- Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc., 21 N.Y.2d 124 (N.Y. 1967) (biography knowingly riddled with material falsifications can be actionable)
- Binns v. Vitagraph Co. of America, 210 N.Y. 51 (N.Y. 1913) (fanciful dramatization of a news event may be outside newsworthiness protection)
- Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1985) (newsworthiness exception protects many expressive works, including dramatizations)
- Foster v. Svenson, 128 A.D.3d 150 (App. Div. 2015) (newsworthy works do not lose protection if fictionalized unless fiction predominates)