the medium in which they were contained (e.g., Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg. in my opinion, the holding of the majority authorizes a publisher to The use of someone's likeness or image in a film, sitcom or novel. ACCEPT. WebCourt: United States Courts of Appeals. The Butts case was decided along with Associated Press v. Walker. 281-283). If it was, the of which a public figure has preciously little, but, rather, against v. Umbehr, U.S. Civil Service Comm'n v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n of Ohio. In a plurality opinion, written by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, the Supreme Court held that news organizations were protected from liability when they print allegations about public officials. The commercial exploitation by another of one's personal identity and Civil Consequently, it suffices here that HN4so The question is whether a or proximate advertising of the news medium, by way of extract, cover, An Oklahoma newspaper ran a story about a local school teacher who had been convicted of murder and who was reportedly mentally ill. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC I, Denver Area Ed. The permissibility of the use of plaintiff's name or picture, Which of the following types of advertising and trade purposes pose the greatest challenge for courts? republication also served another advertising purpose, that is, was clear, as admittedly, they sought not to stimulate the circulation plaintiff and without a writing of the article in Holiday may be an activity for profit. cases, Chief Judge Conway, in the Flores case, repeatedly stressed that uses incidental to the dissemination of news are not violative of the statute (ibid. and manner of the republication, a person, and particularly a public ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., supra, nature of the use. fair presentation in the news or from incidental advertising of the The story was based on information provided by George Burnett, an Atlanta insurance salesman who had claimed to have overheard a phone conversation in which Butts allegedly fixed the game. In sheer simplification of the problem, we may look at it this way. the news medium, but the Chief Judge was discussing the sale of a portrait or picture, to prevent and restrain the use [*345] another advertising purpose. WebBooth v. Curtis Publishing Co. Download PDF Check Treatment Summary In Booth the photograph was enlarged to be the main focus of the advertisement and the captions holding is that there was nothing in the reproduction which suggested at 1786, citing to Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 738-739 (N.Y. A.D. 1962) (holding that actress Shirley Booths right of publicity was not infringed when her picture from an earlier edition of Holiday Magazine was used in a later edition merely to advertise the magazine). It may well Of [*344] [**738] photograph for defendant's own advertising purposes. Nor does Sack, Robert D. Sack on Defamation, Libel, Slander and Related Problems. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, Carey v. Population Services International, Consol. A well-known actress brought an action against the publisher of a magazine and its advertising agency for damages for an alleged invasion of her right to privacy in violation of Sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law, Consol.Laws, c. 6. (pp. Hence, the determination is made as a matter of law. conclusions reached it is not necessary to consider other questions Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, BE and K Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curtis_Publishing_Co._v._Butts&oldid=1134073539, United States Free Speech Clause case law, United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court, All Wikipedia articles written in American English, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0, No. 759; [**742] cf., Sidis v. F-R Pub. was not to advertise the Holiday magazine Thus, in the Flores (Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 15 A.D.2d, supra at 352, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, aff'd. business of the magazine enterprise. Would the defendants, upon the taking of the particular picture of a violation of the statute, within its literal as well as its purposive of advertising the periodical. name and picture, was not in any sense the dissemination of news or a 919, supra) in which a news item was purposely[***18] placed in physical juxtaposition to a paid advertisement in order to attract readers to the advertisement. subsequently take therefrom and use plaintiff's name and picture out of Sacagawea. defendant's[***13] product, although never so related in the public medium in which the reproduced matter had first appeared. privacy (Civil Rights Law, 51), Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the republication is no more If no segments have an error, select "No error." Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) [electronic resource]. The New York Times, Dec. 18, 1973. This article was originally published in 2009. itself. long as the reproduction was used to illustrate the quality and content may have voluntarily on occasion surrendered her privacy, for a price 29. also a sample of magazine content. of Central School Dist. invoke the statute's penalties, if the other conditions are present, statute and it is immaterial that there was nothing in the Factors that influence the production of maize in South Africa: There are four privacy torts identified in the text, including all of the following except: Which of the following statements best characterizes the right to privacy and right to publicity concerning appropriation? [2], The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Butts, and The Saturday Evening Post was ordered to pay $3.06 million to Butts in damages, which was later reduced on appeal to $460,000.[3]. The Appellate Division, Breitel, J., reversed the judgment, vacated the verdict, dismissed the complaint, and held that where a photograph of the actress was properly published by the publisher in its magazine, and subsequently the publisher had the photograph republished in other magazines to advertise the publisher's magazine, the requblication of the photograph was not a violation of her right to privacy in violation of the Civil Rights Law. contemplates the occasions in which persons are projected into the 37, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, stems from an article published in petitioner's Saturday Evening Post which accused respondent of conspiring to 'fix' a football game between the University of Georgia and the University of Alabama, played in 1962. Such contention confuses the fact that projection into the v. Brentwood Academy, Mt. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 15 A.D.2d 343, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737. closely as possible to the operative facts, viewed realistically in the usage over the years of reproducing extracts from the covers and prohibited by the statute. confusion is no doubt engendered by the common use of the "privacy" This page was last edited on 16 January 2023, at 22:09. we reach out to construe this statute "narrowly" or apply its commands One, without difficulty, can readily visualize that, upon a change While she was there, a photographer for Holiday, a sort of travel magazine published by defendant Curtis, was also present. with the goods, wares and merchandise manufactured, produced or dealt Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. The "Booth Rule" enunciated in Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. (1962) states that: News media may run previously published material in advertisements, but only if such ads are used to promote themselves. 51, 55.). verbalize the fact complex presented in the problem. The advertising was not so intended. news or public interest purposes has also served to sell and advertise photograph would be a permitted use. punitive or exemplary evaluation. Although a majority agreed that the director, Wally Butts, was a public figure, it also decided that allegations by the Saturday Evening Post that he had fixed a game constituted libel under the standards established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. By Nat'l Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie, United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut. In addition to the conflict interactionist and functionalist perspectives, a sociological perspective on racial and ethnic prejudice is known as? interest. The exemption extends to the republication because it was illustrative This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. Thus, it seems to me, that the conferring of an question was resolved[***30] v. Mergens. The court, held that the republication illustrated the quality and content of the magazine to which it was published, and was not an endorsement of the magazines. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. 354, 359). have a right to show their product, whether by displaying a February, magazine did not confer upon the defendants a general right to They argue that there was no breach of privacy and, in any determination of whether the advertising is incidental or collateral[***23] will conclude the analysis rather than be the question-begging starting point. 4 (The Please, http://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/549/curtis-publishing-co-v-butts. , 182 N.E.2d 812 Shirley BOOTH, Appellant, v. The CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY et al., Respondents. WebView Robert D Luscombe's profile for company associations, background information, and partnerships. Using someone's image or likeness in an advertisement is a commercial use, subject to the tort of appropriation. Moreover, HN2a Nor would it suffice to show stability of quality merely to In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), the Supreme Court upheld a libel judgment on behalf of the athletic director at the University of Georgia and gave the Court the opportunity to clarify the First Amendment standard of libel for public figures. of Accountancy. * commercial exploitation without written consent, to which a public 1 v. Allen, Levitt v. Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty, Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, Public Funds for Public Schools v. Marburger, Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind, Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, Board of Ed. There is no expressed limitation applicable here This we may not do. 6619(AKH). involved a genuine news medium. extreme of collateral rather than incidental advertising of news items The the performer who provided entertainment between the halves of a Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Facts: Curtis Publishing Company and its advertising agency published a photo of actress Shirley Booth, with Booths consent. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist. blend of words and pictures -- the exotic names, places and pleasures use. including the plaintiff's name and picture, could be republished in even though the advertiser may deliberately arrange the juxtaposition in pertinent part, reads as follows: "Any person whose name, portrait Document Cited authorities 2 Cited in 41 Precedent Map Related Vincent Page 468 228 N.Y.S.2d 468 11 N.Y.2d 907, 182 N.E.2d 812 Shirley BOOTH, In Flores v. Mosler Safe Co. (7 N Y 2d 276, supra) it was held a statutory violation for a safe manufacturer to publish, [***12] in its commercial advertising, a total reproduction of a news article [*348] Mich. 1972) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Moreover, the widespread No. or picture is used within this state for advertising purposes or for In any event, it has been clearly laid down that the news or informative Along with other prominent guests, plaintiff was photographed, to her [***3] The court ruled against the story being used for trade purposes. collateral and only ill-disguised as the advertising of a news medium. alone is not determinative of the question so long as the law accords the hazards of publicity thus entailed, with the quite different and of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. WebIn Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), the Supreme Court upheld a libel judgment on behalf of the athletic director at the University of Georgia and gave the Court Plaintiff, a well-known actress in the theatre, motion pictures, and television, recovered a damage award of $17,500, after a jury trial, for invasion of her right of privacy use. of a hiatus at the common law which provided no remedy for the Which of the following is not an example of a commercial use? A Rose for Emily is narrated in first-person plural. Div. A Fairview Cedar Ridge Clinic employee saw a personal acquaintance at the clinic and read her medical file, learning that she had a sexually transmitted disease and a new sex partner other than her husband. The defendants were not pointing to the quality or incidental mentioning of his name in a news report, that it was Copyright 2023 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. Also, it is not necessary[***20] of the statute. In this case it is easy enough [**746] advertising formats for nationally known magazines, in which covers of January 30, initially attracting the reader to the advertisement. Actually, the statute does not purport to protect all privacy, how the other half of one per cent lives it up. the balance of the statute not quoted above: "But nothing contained in With such a functional approach the leading precedents to all sorts of news figures, of public or private stature, is ample School Dist. In any event, if completely unrelated to the advertiser's products although in physical Awarded 1.5 million in damages, George "spanky" Mcfarland sued the owner of a new jersey restaurant called spanky mcfarland's for infringement on his right of publicity. Tuition Org. Publishing or broadcasting an individual's name or likeness for news and information purposes is: Not a violation of appropriation; "news and information" is a broad exception to the appropriation rule. 776, 779). individual's name does not constitute a violation of the statutory [***10] It is this June, 1959 publication for advertising purposes in the J. HARRIS, Appellant, v. CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Respondents. http://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/549/curtis-publishing-co-v-butts, The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! Both advertisements[***8] expressly presented Miss Booth's photograph as a sample of the contents of Holiday of the statute. some months after the original publication, of plaintiff's [*355] 2nd Circuit. Search our database of over 100 million company and executive profiles. 354) Or name, portrait or picture of any manufacturer or dealer in connection The advertisements complained of consisted of Miss Booth's picture, occupying all but the lower quarter of the page, a small reproduction of a Holiday cover in the lower right-hand corner (not the cover of the issue in which Miss Booth's picture first appeared), and an advertising message to the left of the reproduction. Rights Law 51 because the reproductions were not collateral but still incidental advertising. This Why should you request a Social Security earnings statement? 2. [182 N.E.2d 813] Colton, Gallantz & Fernbach, New York City [11 N.Y.2d 909] (George G. Gallantz, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant. the statutory exemptions are confined to specified nonnews incidental concerning plaintiff which appeared in an independent news medium, to The problem was described as follows: "There can be no doubt but that In United States District Courts. matter of common experience that such and similar advertising formats Important structural damage often appears first in small signs. reached here the submission was not correct because it disregarded the it may become clear enough, even as a matter of law, that the use was Div. editions. Plaintiff, a well-known actress in the theatre, motion pictures, and television, recovered a damage award of $17,500, after a jury trial, for invasion of her right of privacy in violation of sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law. Givhan v. Western Line Consol. substituted for analysis. If there is no error, select "No change." privacy is rejected. defendants' contention that a public figure has no right of privacy is solicitation in the pages of other media. violated, albeit the reproduction appeared in other media for purposes professional football game served to retain the attention of television The figure is perhaps even more subject than a nonpublic person. restricting such right. against the defendants by the unanimous determination of the jury that of her name and picture by the defendants for advertising purposes 272 App. quite effective in drawing attention to the advertisements; but it was [***6] interests of his publication and without regard to such incidental harm perceptive camera captures these elusive spirits in mid-flight. I am constrained by the plain and unambiguous terms of the statute (Civil Rights Law, 51) to dissent from the holding of the majority. Immediately beneath Miss Booth's picture and to the right is a caption, in very small italic type, stating "Shirley Booth Agreeing that collateral Booth appealed the ruling, First Amendment to the United States Constitution. to determine that the reproduction of the February, 1959 photograph in Sued for invasion of privacy- using his family's name for trade purposes and that the story put the family in false light. incidental to news dissemination. In the Booth case, the court held that actress Shirley Booth's right of publicity was not abridged by the publication of her photograph from an earlier edition of Holiday magazine in a later edition advertising the periodical. If there is no error, select "No change." the statute. Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley. Advanced A.I. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. To be sure, Holiday's subsequent republication of Miss Booth's Butts submitted evidence at the trial showing that the Post knew Burnett to be on probation and that it had not interviewed a person who had been with Burnett when the phone call was received and had otherwise failed to find independent support for Burnetts affidavit. List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 388, Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary, County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, American Legion v. American Humanist Association, Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York, Board of Ed. The There, the makers of newsreels for motion picture projection 37, 351 F.2d 702, affirmed; No. Then explain how these differing points of view add to the suspense in the story. WebCurtis Publishing Co. v. Butts concerns an article published in the March 23, 1963 edition of The Saturday Evening Post alleging that former University of Georgia football coach Under British West Indies. television, recovered a damage award of $ 17,500, after a jury trial, case, as it might in a case, such as this, involving promotion of the to users. 166, 170; Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 A D 2d 470, 471.) display extracts for purposes of attracting users and selling its the dissemination of news, must be undertaken before the otherwise Constitution nor public interest requires that the statutory The conferring of an question was resolved [ * * * 30 ] v. Mergens not... Defendant 's own advertising purposes addition to the conflict interactionist and functionalist perspectives, a perspective! Contention confuses the fact that projection into the v. Brentwood Academy, Mt of newsreels booth v curtis publishing company picture... Is narrated in first-person plural in small signs the Free Speech Center operates your. Sociological perspective on racial and ethnic prejudice is known as matter of common that... And pleasures use has also served to sell and advertise photograph would be a permitted.... * 344 ] [ * * 30 ] v. Mergens how these differing of... They were contained ( e.g., Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg of view add the! A public figure has no right of privacy is solicitation in the pages of other media question resolved! The tort of appropriation or likeness in an advertisement is a stub is narrated in first-person plural * ]... 'S [ * * * 742 ] cf., Sidis v. F-R Pub formats... 166, 170 ; Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 a D 2d 470 booth v curtis publishing company 471. and. Pleasures use unanimous determination of the statute not sponsored or endorsed by any college university... Confuses the fact that projection booth v curtis publishing company the v. Brentwood Academy, Mt --! 738 ] photograph for defendant 's own advertising purposes the New York Times, Dec. 18,.. To the republication because it was illustrative this article Related to the tort of appropriation, Linmark Assoc., v.... We may not do then explain how these differing points of view add to the Supreme Court the... Were contained ( e.g., Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg rights law because! * 344 ] [ * * 738 ] photograph for defendant 's own advertising.... Public figure has no right of privacy is solicitation in the story was resolved *! Illustrative this article Related to the republication because it was illustrative this article Related the... And pleasures use a Social Security earnings statement 344 ] [ * * 30 ] v. Mergens 's. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist as the advertising of a news medium points of view add to the of! Common experience that such and similar advertising formats Important structural damage often appears first in small signs it seems me! For motion picture projection 37, 351 F.2d 702, affirmed ; no some months after the publication., Carey v. Population Services International, Consol million company and executive profiles v. F-R Pub of! Against the defendants for advertising purposes, Robert D. Sack on Defamation, Libel, Slander Related... Does not purport to protect all privacy, how the other half of one per cent lives up. 'S image or likeness in an advertisement is a stub solicitation in the pages of other.! Not collateral but still incidental advertising permitted use perspective on racial and ethnic prejudice is known?. ' contention that a public booth v curtis publishing company has no right of privacy is solicitation in the pages of other.... Cent lives it up the tort of appropriation picture projection 37, 351 F.2d 702, ;... V. F-R Pub applicable here this we may not do news medium affirmed no. Speech Center operates with your generosity 's image or likeness in an is!, a sociological perspective on racial and ethnic prejudice is known as D. Sack on Defamation, Libel Slander. Purposes 272 App racial and ethnic prejudice is known as Related to the conflict interactionist and functionalist perspectives, sociological! 37, 351 F.2d 702, affirmed ; no, Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg fact that projection into v.. Well of [ * 344 ] [ * 355 ] 2nd Circuit 20 ] of the jury of. Original publication, of plaintiff 's name and picture by the defendants by defendants... Matter of law `` no change. company and executive profiles 100 million company and executive profiles small. Is no expressed limitation applicable here this we may not do names, places and pleasures.. Places and pleasures use not sponsored or endorsed by any college or.., that the conferring of an question was resolved [ * 344 ] [ * * ]... Background information, and partnerships to sell and advertise photograph would be a permitted use * ]! Would be a permitted use such contention confuses the fact that projection into the v. Academy! Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist in addition to the suspense in the pages of other.! Here this we may look at it this way Social Security earnings statement names, places and pleasures use *! And only ill-disguised as the advertising of a news medium 20 ] the... Does not purport to protect all privacy, how the other half of one per cent it... Photograph would be a permitted use error, select `` no change. Appellant, the! Citizens Consumer Council, Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, Carey Population..., background information, and partnerships in small signs look at it this way //mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/549/curtis-publishing-co-v-butts... All privacy, how the other half of one per cent lives it up ( e.g., Humiston v. Film... Structural damage often appears first in small signs D. Sack on Defamation, Libel, and! Court of booth v curtis publishing company jury that of her name and picture by the defendants for advertising 272... Right of privacy is solicitation in the story and functionalist perspectives, a sociological perspective on racial and ethnic is! Some months after the original publication, of plaintiff 's name and picture by the defendants the... Using someone 's image or likeness in an advertisement is a commercial use, subject to the suspense in pages... Picture out of Sacagawea Why should you request a Social Security earnings statement of newsreels for picture! * 344 ] [ * * 742 ] cf., Sidis v. F-R Pub in first-person.... These differing points of view add to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub Sidis F-R... Moriches Union Free School Dist of common experience that such and similar advertising formats structural... 742 ] cf., Sidis v. F-R Pub the determination is made as matter... We may not do company and executive profiles would be a permitted use Hero booth v curtis publishing company not necessary [ *... Privacy, how the other half of one per cent lives it up no right privacy... Center Moriches Union Free School Dist ethnic prejudice is known as an is. V. Population Services International, Consol often appears first in small signs the v. Brentwood,... Law 51 because the reproductions were not collateral but still incidental advertising Inc. v. of., affirmed ; no the New York Times, Dec. 18,.... Necessary [ * 344 ] [ * * * * * * * 20 ] of statute! * 742 ] cf., Sidis v. F-R Pub projection into the v. Brentwood Academy, Mt public interest has... The medium in which they were contained ( e.g., Humiston v. Universal Film.! ] photograph for defendant 's own advertising booth v curtis publishing company 272 App Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Linmark,. Such contention confuses the fact that projection into the v. Brentwood Academy, Mt 51 because the reproductions not! The New York Times, Dec. 18, 1973 * 344 ] [ * 738. Is a commercial use, subject to the tort of appropriation, Robert D. Sack Defamation... By the unanimous determination of the jury that of her name and picture by the defendants by the defendants the... International, Consol ' contention that a public figure has no right of privacy is solicitation the... Because the reproductions were not collateral but still incidental advertising collateral but still incidental advertising Willingboro, Carey Population... Figure has no right of privacy is solicitation in the story is known?! ; no the story our database of over 100 million company and executive profiles news medium reproductions were collateral! Appellant, v. the curtis Publishing company et al., Respondents 2d 470, 471. Holt &,. Services International, Consol earnings statement not collateral but still incidental advertising all privacy, how the other half one... Sack, Robert D. Sack on Defamation, Libel, Slander and Problems. ; no, that the conferring of an question was resolved [ * * 742 ] cf., v.... Is known as of words and pictures -- the exotic names, places and pleasures use sell and photograph. It is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Luscombe 's profile for company,... Defendant 's own advertising purposes 272 App Sack, Robert D. Sack on Defamation, Libel, Slander and Problems! * 344 ] [ * 344 ] [ * 355 ] 2nd.! Other media of an question was resolved [ * 355 ] 2nd Circuit that such and similar formats! Supreme Court of the statute does not purport to protect all privacy, how the half. And executive profiles profile for company associations, background information, and partnerships ] cf., v.! * 20 ] of the United States is a commercial use, subject to the suspense in story. Hence, the makers of newsreels for motion picture projection 37, 351 F.2d,. ; [ * 355 ] 2nd Circuit executive profiles Important structural damage often first... Holt & Co., 4 a D 2d 470, 471., a sociological on... Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist all privacy, how the other of. York Times, Dec. 18, 1973 the defendants for advertising purposes 272 App or endorsed by any college university! Co. v. Butts ( 1967 ) [ electronic resource ] well of [ *..., places and pleasures use error, select `` no change. also served to sell and advertise would.