Conde Nast Publications
Myskina won the 2004 French open.
was 20 year old at the time the pictures were taken.
court then held that the tennis player's claims under N.Y. Civ. Rights
Law 50 and 51 failed because she signed a
release allowing the
unrestricted editorial use of her photographs by the company,
magazine, photographer, and studio, and the alleged oral agreement
limiting the tennis player's consent to publication of her photographs
was barred by the parol evidence rule.
alleged the photographs were for GQ.
Seliger asked Myskina if he could keep
the additional photos outside of the Lady Godiva on a Black
photographs were also published by Russian magazine Medved.
person who is illiterate in the English language is not automatically
excused from complying with the terms of a contract simply because he or
she could not read it."
Application of the
parol evidence rule involves a three-step inquiry:
whether the written contract is an integrated agreement; if it
whether the language of the written contract is clear or is ambiguous;
and, (iii) if the language is clear, then apply the clear language.
In this case
Release does not mention the alleged
oral agreement limiting Myskinas consent to the GQ photographs.
How often will a written document make
reference to a side oral agreement? If this is the case wouldnt you
include it in the written document?
contact addresses a straightforward
transaction and plainly sets forth that Myskina consented to
defendants' use of all
photographs taken on July 16, 2002. This deal
is not as complicated Steelers tickets. This is just,,, can we take
your picture. Did the court entertain
the possibility that the contract was so simple that there could have
been a side agreement?
oral agreement was so fundamental
that it would not have been omitted by the parties.
is no dispute that Myskina was represented by the firm throughout the
Although this case
did not have a merger clause, it was
Extrinsic Evidence could be considered if
(1) the agreement
must in form be a collateral one; Cannot be
part and parcel of this.
(2) it must not
contradict express or implied provisions of the written contract;
(3) it must be one
that parties would not ordinarily be expected to embody in the writing.
must not be so clearly connected
with the principal transaction as to be part and parcel of it.
In this case
The alleged oral
agreement was not collateral.
The alleged oral
agreement contradicts the written agreement.
of publication should have been expected to be memorialized in
Release, which is printed on Conde Nast letterhead, provides that the
signatory model "hereby irrevocably consent[s] to the use of [her] name
and the pictures taken of [her] on [a specified date] by [Conde Nast], .
. . and others it may authorize, for editorial purposes."
Everything shot on this day was covered by the release.
Myskina argument would contradict by limiting the agreement.
is an ambiguous, she
should have argued what this meant.
This does not mean saling photographs to a