Your face is in their ad. You never signed anything.

NY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW §§ 50–51 · CPLR § 215(3)

The statute.

New York Civil Rights Law § 50 makes it a misdemeanor to use, for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait, or picture of any living person without first obtaining that person's written consent. Section 51 gives the person whose name, portrait, picture, or voice is used that way a civil action: for an injunction to stop the use, and for damages for the injury caused. If the defendant knowingly used the name or image without consent, the court may also award exemplary damages.

Three features of this law do most of the work in real cases. First, consent has to be written. A verbal "sure, go ahead," a nod at a photo shoot, or a vague social media interaction is not consent under the statute. Second, the use has to be for advertising or trade, which courts read as use in connection with selling something or promoting a business. Third, the statute protects every living person, not just celebrities. You do not need to be famous to have a claim; you need to have been used to sell something without signing off.

What counts as advertising or trade.

The core cases are obvious: your photo in an ad, on a billboard, in a mailer, on a product page, in a sponsored post. But the statute reaches further than people expect.

• A business website and social media. A company's own Instagram, its homepage, its Google Business photos, and its Yelp profile are promotional. A stylist's photo on the salon's "our team" page after she has left is a use for trade.
• Testimonials. A quote under your name endorsing a product or service is advertising, and a testimonial you never gave is advertising plus a false statement.
• Before-and-after images. A clinic, gym, or dentist using your results to attract new customers is advertising, regardless of whether your face is the focus.
• Reposted content. A brand that reposts your photo of its product on its own feed, with a caption promoting the product, has used your picture for trade. This is the influencer case, and it arises whether or not you have a following.
• Your voice. Section 51 expressly covers voice, which matters for radio spots, podcasts, and AI-generated imitations used commercially.

The exceptions, in words.

The statute does not reach everything with your face on it. Courts have long held that use in connection with news reporting, commentary, and other matters of public interest is not a use for advertising or trade, even when the publication is sold for profit. A newspaper can run your photo with a story. A documentary can include you. A book can discuss you. Creative and editorial works are generally outside the statute unless the connection between you and the work is so thin that your image is really just being used to sell it.

Incidental uses, where you appear briefly or in the background of something that is not about you, are generally not actionable. And the statute has its own carve-outs for, among other things, a photographer exhibiting specimen work at their studio unless you object in writing, and the use of an author's or performer's name in connection with work they sold. If a business's use is arguably editorial, we evaluate that before sending anything, because an overreaching letter invites a quick and confident refusal.

What you can recover.

Section 51 provides two remedies. The first is an injunction: a court order requiring the business to stop using your name or image. The second is damages for the injury caused. In practice, damages in a right-of-publicity case are usually measured by what the business should have paid for the use, which is the fair market value of a license for a person in your position, plus any additional harm, such as embarrassment, lost opportunities, or damage to your own brand. Where the use was knowing, the statute allows exemplary damages on top, which is the lever that makes businesses settle.

Numbers vary enormously. A local business using an ex-employee's photo on a team page might owe a modest license fee. A brand running an influencer's image in a paid campaign across multiple platforms could owe what an equivalent campaign license would have cost, which can be significant. A fabricated testimonial or a use that implies endorsement of something you find objectionable adds a harm component beyond the license value.

The one-year clock.

Claims under Civil Rights Law § 51 must be brought within one year, under CPLR § 215(3). The clock generally runs from when the use was first published, not from when you discovered it. A photo that has been on a website for fourteen months may already be time-barred as to the original posting, though courts have treated some continuing or republished uses differently. Do not wait to find out. If you found the use this week, the letter should go out this month.

The situations we see most.

Influencers and creators. A brand reposts your content in a way that promotes their product, runs it in a paid ad, or uses it on a product page. You had no deal, or your deal covered one post and they used it in twenty. The letter demands removal and a license fee for the use that occurred, and often opens the door to a proper agreement.

Former employees. You left, and your photo is still on the website, the Instagram, the flyers, the truck. The business is trading on your face to suggest you still work there. The letter demands removal within days and compensation for the period of unauthorized use after you left.

Testimonials and reviews. A business attributes a glowing quote to you that you never gave, or uses a review you posted on a third-party site in its own ads with your name and photo. The first is a use for advertising plus a false statement; the second is a use for advertising without written consent.

Patients, clients, and customers. Your results, your image, or your name in a provider's marketing. This frequently overlaps with confidentiality obligations the provider had to you, which the letter also addresses.

What a cease and desist letter does here.

The right-of-publicity letter is a takedown plus a compensation demand. It identifies every use, with URLs and screenshots, and the date each was first published. It states that no written consent exists. It cites §§ 50 and 51, notes the misdemeanor provision and the availability of exemplary damages for knowing use, and demands three things by a date: removal of every use, written confirmation that no other uses exist, and payment of a stated amount for the use that has already occurred. It also demands preservation of the business's records about the campaign, which matters for proving how long and how widely the image was used.

This letter works unusually well, for a reason specific to the statute. Most defamation and harassment letters rest on claims with contestable elements. This one rests on a single question, is there a signed consent, and the business usually knows the answer is no. Faced with a letter that cites a statute with a criminal provision, a damages remedy, and an exemplary-damages kicker, most businesses take the image down immediately and negotiate the payment.

It does not work on editorial uses, on uses with a signed release you forgot about, or on uses more than a year old without a republication. And it does not produce an injunction by itself; only a court does that, in Supreme Court, because small claims can award money but cannot order a business to stop. Where the dispute is only about the money, the comparison on demand letter vs. small claims is relevant.

Related pages.

The cease and desist hub explains how this letter fits with the others. If the business has also made false statements about you, someone spreading lies about me covers defamation. If you are the business owner on the receiving end of a fake review, fake online reviews is the page. If the unauthorized use came from a former client who also has not paid you, a client won't pay and the Freelance Isn't Free Act apply to that side. Our flat-fee demand letters page explains how the letter is prepared and sent.