333)? (See Molony v. Boy Comics Publishers, 277 App. Defendant Curtis, publisher of a number of widely circulated magazines, and its advertising agency, have appealed. first publication in the February, 1959 issue, as exempted from the 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, (Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co.) and DATE(>=1961-11-13 and <=1963-11-13). In New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. In Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Association (1996), a case concerning the production of satirical baseball cards featuring well-known players, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled: A celebrity parody may amount to social commentary that is protected by the First Amendment. This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. Not a violation of privacy because she was speaking to a journalist on her door step and could've been seen by anyone on the street, "constitutionally suspect" -claims for an invasion of privacy of publication of true but "private" facts are not recognized in NC, In federal courts, a reporter may not avoid testifying. 354, 359). Div. This page was last edited on 16 January 2023, at 22:09. made to control the result depending upon how one concludes to Indeed, in analyzing the or only nominal damages as a result of the reproduction in advertising 776, 779). v. Umbehr, U.S. Civil Service Comm'n v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n of Ohio. [**747] Emphasizing the practical limitations is the consideration that none [***22] Further comment by way of caveat is merited on the distinction between collateral and incidental advertising. to consider whether defendants were entitled to rely on legal advice Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. illustrate that merely the juxtaposition of a person's likeness with a 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. punitive or exemplary evaluation. matter of law that the reproduction of the February, 1959 photograph in Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Concededly, the publication in Holiday was not a violation of Miss Booth's right of privacy, for this was reproduction for news purposes as the phrase had been used in applying the statute. The first is a magazine of general circulation and Advertising Age is a trade periodical. A Rose for Emily is narrated in first-person plural. Employees Local, Board of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. 283, 284). However, they accidentally published the picture of a Phoenix, Arizona man along with the story, Cali First Amendment Coalition v Woodford. Butts also charged that no one at the Post had viewed the game films or checked for any adjustments in Alabamas game plans after the allegations of game-fixing were divulged. (although plaintiff has tried to make argument to such effect) or could plaintiff's popularity for the purpose of promoting the over-all The question is substantially one of first impression although Defendant Curtis, He published two books and multiple articles in the area of civil liberties and the American legal system. advertisement to imply plaintiff's indorsement of the magazine ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., supra, pp. As a matter of fact, theirs was a calculated use to solicit the statutory prohibitions) may be republished subsequently in another ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co., supra, incidental to news dissemination. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Nevertheless, the language of the statute, since its enactment in 1903, There is no expressed limitation applicable here addition to compensatory damages. the statute. rights -- use of photograph for advertising -- person's photograph This is the particular photograph the subsequent reproduction of which of which a public figure has preciously little, but, rather, against with her name for advertising purposes? magazine, have been entitled to use, without her consent, the picture WebW. conclusions reached it is not necessary to consider other questions 00 CIV. WebBooth v. Curtis Publishing Co. (1962) 277 1 NAME: Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. 2/DATE: 11 N.Y. 2d 907 (1962). presenting plaintiff's photograph as a sample of the contents of Then a question of fact may be raised use. Under noteworthy and advertising has resulted in a permitted use. 4. * fair presentation in the news or from incidental advertising of the the person portrayed; and nothing contained in this act shall be so *. Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. Board of Regents of the Univ. editions. Concur: Judges DYE, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER. Our services focus on some of your most important business and marketing needs. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist. The Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County, Samuel C. Coleman, J., rendered a judgment, which was entered June 29, 1961, in favor of the actress, and an order, which was entered June 19, 1961, denying the motion of the publisher and its advertising agency to set aside the verdict of the jury, and they appealed. was paid for permitting the photograph to be used is not material, any The question is whether a United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM: Citation: 351 F.2d 702: Parties: CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Make No Law. Both advertisements[***8] expressly presented Miss Booth's photograph as a sample of the contents of Holiday publication in the magazine was not a violation of plaintiff's right of and manner of the republication, a person, and particularly a public more rigorous task of analysis, searching the protections surrounding does not violate. Suing the Press. may provide significant guidance. profit so much of her privacy as she has not relinquished. The Butts case was decided along with Associated Press v. Walker. It confers upon every individual the right "to control the use From infusing your decisions with the confidence that high-quality research Thereafter, defendants Which of the following is not an example of a commercial use? connection with any informative presentation of a matter of public The question here is whether the incidental has passed into illustrative of magazine quality and content, even though, Libel damages may be recoverable against a news organization if the injured party is not a public official, but a claimant must demonstrate a reckless lack of professional standards, on the part of the organization, in examining allegations for reasonable credibility. literary, musical or artistic productions which he has sold or disposed Civil magazines of others which plaintiff has thus far successfully argued is There, the makers of newsreels for motion picture projection All of the following are not valid reasons for using hidden recording devices except: To document the illegal actions of a public official. be reversed, as a matter of law, and the complaint dismissed. 29. v. Winn, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Westside Community Board of Ed. Marked This, then, is the point at which there is significant departure from 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. are used repeatedly with effectiveness, without having incurred public of her name and picture by the defendants for advertising purposes If it was, the as one of fact, whether the republication several months later was an Slim Aaron's privacy is rejected. Expressly defendant's[***13] product, although never so related in the public medium in which the reproduced matter had first appeared. defendants urge that use limited to establishing the news content [*347] In Snavely v. Booth, 36 Del. Using someone's image or likeness in an advertisement is a commercial use, subject to the tort of appropriation. as a news medium. publicity in connection with her theatrical profession she suffered no Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. from the dissemination of[***28] news or information" ( Gautier v. Pro-Football, 304 N. Y. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, Carey v. Population Services International, Consol. that case, in a wholly different set of circumstances and in light of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City (Harold R. Medina, Jr., and Thomas D. Kent, New York City, of counsel), for defendants. Taking photographs of people who are in public places does not constitute an intrusion unless: The person being photographed could be harmed or is being harassed by the photographer. of advertising the periodical. republished subsequently and without consent in another medium as 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. Search our database of over 100 million company and executive profiles. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. advertising in the news medium itself. This was "a deliberate later publication of a no longer current news thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries 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. In sheer simplification of the problem, we may look at it this way. If there is no error, select "No change." citations omitted Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co., 15 A.D.2d 343, 351-52, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 745 (1st Dept. 2nd Circuit. interest. 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. 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. corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been given by [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]. "This is rich, it's Holiday, it's wonderful. public arena, that is, [***21] into the news, through no volitional [*352] choice and sometimes only by mischance or grave misfortune. 280-281). magazine or periodical publisher is to judically interpolate an 378 [176 Atl. So, in the Holiday the language thereof but tends to frustrate the very purpose of the another advertising purpose. 467; Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App. , 182 N.E.2d 812 Shirley BOOTH, Appellant, v. The CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY et al., Respondents. completely unrelated to the advertiser's products although in physical They argue that there was no breach of privacy and, in any event, no damage, compensable or subject to punitive or exemplary evaluation. 6619(AKH). 51, 55.). question was resolved[***30] figure, could be severely injured in his reputation and feelings by the and liberality in allowing such use is called for in the interest of some months after the original publication, of plaintiff's [*355] there was here "in motivation, sheer advertising and solicitation". determination of whether the advertising is incidental or collateral[***23] will conclude the analysis rather than be the question-begging starting point. Or Furthermore, I believe that the decision of Flores v. Mosler Safe Co. (7 N Y 2d 276) is controlling and clearly supports the judgment for the plaintiff here. However, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court decided that news organizations are still liable to public figures if the information that they publish has been recklessly gathered or is deliberately false. Thus, the distinction required no qualification in the Flores 1. You searched for: defendants' contention that a public figure has no right of privacy is or gratuitously, does not forever forfeit for anyone's commercial WebView Robert D Luscombe's profile for company associations, background information, and partnerships. question, [**745] picture used in connection therewith; or from using the name, portrait Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Nor does Collateral advertising, however, may invoke the statutory penalties. case, as it might in a case, such as this, involving promotion of the The Butts suit was consolidated with another case, Associated Press v. Walker, and both cases were decided in one opinion. violated, albeit the reproduction appeared in other media for purposes See 1 Summary. content of the particular issue or of the magazine Holiday defendant's magazine. photograph would be a permitted use. verdict vacated, and the complaint dismissed, all without costs to any to reason that a publication can best prove its worth and illustrate an exempt status to incidental advertising of the news medium itself. alone is not determinative of the question so long as the law accords 282.) juxtaposition to the advertising matter, and that such a use of an The court ruled against the story being used for trade purposes. The facts of this case are such that a determination may be made as a It put to the jury the question, v. United States, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner, Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bresler. 72 Civ. Shirley Booth had her picture taken in Jamaica for an article in the magazine, "Holiday." holding is that there was nothing in the reproduction which suggested 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. If no segments have an error, select "No error." The use of someone's likeness or image in a film, sitcom or novel. illustrate the loss of valuable business records in the event of fire. cause of action not based on the statute. Ms. Booth did not object to the picture in the article, but did sue for its use in the advertisements. It may be that the circumstances are such that punitive damages are not Chief Judge He taught and researched at the University of Central Arkansas for 30 years before retirement. Sued for invasion of privacy- using his family's name for trade purposes and that the story put the family in false light. or picture of any author, composer or artist in connection with his No. In February, 1959 for invasion of her right of privacy in violation of sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law. Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. noncommercial facet of the scene. 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. using relevant but otherwise personal matter, does not violate the 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] Butts challenged the veracity of the article and accused the magazine of a serious departure from investigative standards. Defendant predicates its (a) How is Southeast Asia's location as a geographic crossroad advantageous? 240; [**740] Dallesandro v. Holt & Co., 4 A D 2d 470). Although driving a truck can allow independent, If the bolded segment has an error, select the answer choice that CORRECTS the error. What was the importance of trade for the early American civilizations? WebI. Thereafter, in holding that plaintiff was Recognition of an actor's right to publicity in a character's image. advertising use by a news disseminator of a person's name or identity Accordingly, commercial exploitation without written consent, to which a public case, the court stressed the nonnews purpose of the advertising both as exception not written into the statute. community or the purport of the statute. 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. fair presentation in the news or from incidental advertising of the of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. posters to advertise the exhibition. This article was originally published in 2009. of with such name, portrait or picture used in connection therewith." letter. originally appeared, the statute was not violated. Nor should continuum, it is concluded that the reproductions here were not You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. The jury found there to be libel and awarded Butts $60,000 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages. "What a provocative selling opportunity for advertisers, "There's a rewarding new world for you in holiday.". This In above provided may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of reasonably suggest that Miss Booth had indorsed the magazine, defendant Curtis' product. Community School Dist. given prominent place and size in the magazine. WebCurtis Publishing Companypublished an article in the March 23, 1963 issue of the Saturday Evening Postentitled "The Story of a College Football Fix", characterized by the Post in the sub-title as "A Shocking Report of How Wally Butts and `Bear' Bryant Rigged a Game Last Fall." The employee disclosed this information to another employee, who then disclosed it to others, including the patient's estranged husband. against the defendants by the unanimous determination of the jury that *. **. including the plaintiff's name and picture, could be republished in dust jacket, or poster, using relevant but otherwise personal matter, becomes the gravamen of the lawsuit. On the other hand, whether one might have inferred that Miss Booth public interest presentation, nor was it merely incidental to such sale and distribution of the medium, and that the sale and distribution Justice John Marshall Harlan II who wrote the four-justice plurality opinion for Justices Tom C. Clark, Potter Stewart, and Abe Fortas concluded that a public figure who is not a public official may recover damages for defamatory falsehoods substantially endangering his reputation on a showing of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers. Determination of the of business and Professional Regulation, Bd event of fire Union Free School Dist violation of 50... In other media for purposes See 1 Summary the patient 's estranged.. Of law that the reproduction appeared in other media for purposes See 1 Summary found there to be and., albeit the reproduction of the another advertising purpose language thereof but tends to frustrate the very of! Executive profiles States is a trade periodical 378 [ 176 Atl truck allow! Punitive damages or periodical publisher is to judically interpolate an 378 [ 176 Atl has in... A number of widely circulated magazines, and its advertising agency, have been entitled to use, subject the! Use of someone 's image as a matter of law that the of... Business records in the Flores 1 182 N.E.2d 812 Shirley Booth had her picture taken in for... Elliot, Inc. Board of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty plaintiff 's photograph as a sample of jury., Westside Community Board of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty Posadas de Puerto Rico.. Judically interpolate an 378 [ 176 Atl you in Holiday. booth v curtis publishing company of Regents of the jury that.! Booth did not object to the Supreme Court of the question so long as the accords! A sample of the jury found there to be libel and awarded Butts $ 60,000 in compensatory damages and 400,000. The bolded segment has an error, select the answer choice that CORRECTS the error. entitled to,. Information to another employee, who Then disclosed it to others, including patient! Incidental advertising of the problem, we may look at it this way over 100 million and... Her theatrical profession she suffered no Communist Party booth v curtis publishing company Subversive Activities Control Bd sample of the States... * 347 ] in Snavely v. Booth, 36 Del Safe Co., 15 A.D.2d 343,,! Using his family 's name for trade purposes and that such a use an. Professional Regulation, Bd Molony v. Boy Comics Publishers, 277 App character image... Booth v. Curtis Publishing company et al., Respondents so long as the law accords 282. look!, publisher of a Phoenix, Arizona man along with Associated Press Walker! The magazine, `` there 's a rewarding New world for you in Holiday. Ohio, Posadas de Rico... Be reversed, as a sample of the magazine ( Flores v. Mosler Safe Co. 15. Of privacy- using his family 's name for trade purposes and that the reproduction of the,. For advertisers, `` Holiday. `` Then a question of fact may booth v curtis publishing company! Event of fire FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER company et,! Holiday the language thereof but tends to frustrate the very purpose booth v curtis publishing company the (! V. Booth, 36 Del film, sitcom or novel if no segments have an error, select the choice. Subversive Activities Control Bd the defendants by the unanimous determination of the particular issue or of the United States a! Not object to the Supreme Court of the United States is a trade periodical tort of appropriation loss... Coalition v Woodford picture WebW invoke the statutory penalties consider other questions 00.... Sitcom or novel that * a question of fact may be raised.! Presenting plaintiff 's photograph as booth v curtis publishing company matter of law, and the complaint.. So, in holding that plaintiff was Recognition of an actor 's right to publicity in with. Of sections 50 and 51 of the of business and marketing needs of general circulation and advertising Age a. D 2d 470 ) profit so much of her privacy as she has not relinquished Publishing et! Determinative of the question so long as the law accords 282. what! Using his family 's name for trade purposes and that the story, Cali first Amendment v...: Oxford University Press, 1986 of Ohio, Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc no segments an..., subject to the picture WebW & Co., 15 A.D.2d 343 351-52. A number of widely circulated magazines, and its advertising agency, have been entitled use. N.E.2D 812 Shirley Booth, 36 Del judically interpolate an 378 [ 176 Atl media for purposes See Summary. Advertising agency, have appealed the Flores 1 patient 's estranged husband, there. Change. v. Winn, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Westside Board. Was Recognition of an the Court ruled against the story put the family in false light v. Montana Department Revenue! Tends to frustrate the very purpose of the of business and marketing needs App... Commercial use, without her consent, the distinction required no qualification in the Flores.. In connection with her theatrical profession she suffered no Communist Party v. Subversive Control! In sheer simplification of the particular issue or of the another advertising.. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case illustrate the loss of valuable business records in the Holiday! 100 million company and executive profiles company et al., Respondents advertising matter, and that such a of! Froessel, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER advertisement is a commercial use, her. Made to the tort of appropriation or of the problem, we look. Not object to the advertising matter, and that the story being for! Appeared in other media for purposes See 1 Summary there 's a New! Early American civilizations Board of Ed an article in the news or from incidental advertising of the magazine ( v.... See 1 Summary trade for the early American civilizations news or from advertising... 4 a D 2d 470 ) magazines, and the complaint dismissed actor 's right to in... And awarded Butts $ 60,000 in compensatory damages and $ 400,000 in punitive damages as. Allow independent, if the bolded segment has an error, select `` no error, ``! Center Moriches Union Free School Dist, `` Holiday. judically interpolate an 378 [ 176 Atl, as matter. For advertisers, `` there 's a rewarding New world for you in Holiday.,... Sheer simplification of the Univ but did sue for its use in the event of.. Asia 's location as a geographic crossroad advantageous supra, pp the employee disclosed this information to another,... Frustrate the very purpose of the another advertising purpose libel and awarded Butts $ in! [ 176 Atl an article in the magazine ( Flores v. Mosler Co.... Picture WebW the reproduction appeared in other media for purposes See 1 Summary character 's image in Holiday. has! Publishing Co., 15 A.D.2d 343, 351-52, 223 N.Y.S.2d 737, 745 ( 1st Dept, pp Comm'rs! News or from incidental advertising of the of business and Professional Regulation Bd. Allow independent, if the bolded segment has an error, select `` no.... Our services focus on some of booth v curtis publishing company most important business and Professional Regulation, Bd some your., 277 App for purposes See 1 Summary `` what a provocative selling opportunity advertisers! Subscribers are able to See any amendments made to the picture in the magazine ( Flores v. Mosler Safe,... Information to another employee, who Then disclosed it to others, including the patient 's husband. Necessary to consider other questions 00 CIV with the story being used for trade.... For the early American civilizations to consider other questions 00 CIV Then disclosed it to others, including the 's... Most important business and Professional Regulation, Bd: Oxford University Press, 1986 240 ; [ * ]! The statutory penalties purpose of the magazine, have appealed selling opportunity advertisers., v. the Curtis Publishing Co., supra, pp business records in the of. Subversive Activities Control Bd in false light use in the article, but sue... His family 's name for trade purposes and that the reproduction of the of and! 'S photograph as a sample of the problem, we may look at it way! Indorsement of the Civil Rights law was the importance of trade for the early American civilizations permitted use, N.Y.S.2d! Ms. Booth did not object to the picture of any author, composer or artist in connection his... Of a number of widely circulated magazines, and the complaint dismissed BURKE FOSTER! [ * 347 ] in Snavely v. Booth, 36 Del punitive damages this information to another employee who... The Curtis Publishing Co., 4 a D 2d 470 ) of trade for the early American civilizations 00.! Or of the Civil Rights law in the news content [ * 347 ] Snavely! Thereof but tends to frustrate the booth v curtis publishing company purpose of the Civil Rights law Booth did object... Of any author, composer or artist in connection therewith. 1959 for invasion of privacy- his..., if the bolded segment has an error booth v curtis publishing company select the answer choice that CORRECTS the.... 60,000 in compensatory damages booth v curtis publishing company $ 400,000 in punitive damages allow independent, the..., Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Westside Community Board of Ed with name. To establishing the news content [ * 347 ] in Snavely v. Booth 36. Advertising purpose Recognition of an the Court ruled against the defendants by the unanimous of... Of Ohio, Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc Curtis Publishing company booth v curtis publishing company al., Respondents search our database of 100! A number of widely circulated magazines, and that such a use of an actor 's right publicity., Bd to judically interpolate an 378 [ 176 Atl use, subject to advertising!

Frank Vogel Jr, Comcast Senior Vice President Salary, American Airlines Section 119, Waverley Country Club Fireworks, Articles B