Transform identity misuse cases into data-driven, repeatable litigation workflows. Every use identified. Every gap documented. Every defense anticipated.
The Litman Method rests on a simple premise: statutory violations are provable facts, not narratives. Every case element reduces to one of four properties.
Each use of a person's name, portrait, or likeness is separately identified as an individual statutory event.
Every identified use is supported by primary-source evidence tied to a specific date, document, and actor.
Uses are counted, categorized by type and severity, and organized into a structured evidence ledger.
Written consent either exists or it does not. The statute requires it. There is no middle ground.
From raw data to courtroom-ready filings, each step builds on the last to produce an airtight evidentiary record.
Build the Publication Ledger: a comprehensive, date-indexed record of every instance where the plaintiff's name or identity was used. Sources include public filings, government databases, corporate websites, correspondence, and marketing materials.
Each captured use is classified across four dimensions: commercial purpose (was it connected to trade or advertising?), public visibility (who saw it?), timing (does it fall within the statute of limitations?), and control (who caused it to happen?).
Apply the binary written consent test. NY Civil Rights Law requires prior written consent for commercial use of a living person's name. The system searches all available records -- agreements, correspondence, discovery responses -- for any document that could constitute consent. The absence is documented as comprehensively as the presence of each use.
Count, categorize, and structure all violations into a damages engine. Group by type of use, time period, revenue association, and defendant. Build the factual foundation for statutory damages, unjust enrichment, and compensatory models.
Convert the structured evidence into litigation tools: complaint allegations, Requests for Admission designed to lock in concessions, motion for summary judgment with exhibit-mapped proof, deposition preparation with impeachment indices, and settlement presentations with calculated ranges.
NY Civil Rights Law sections 50-51 require three elements. The Litman Method maps each to a specific, repeatable proof method.
| Element | Proof Method | System Output | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of Name NYCRL section 51 -- "uses ... the name, portrait or picture" | Publication Ledger: each use identified by date, document, and publication channel with primary-source evidence | Exhibit-indexed ledger with Bates-numbered source documents for every entry | ✓ |
| Trade or Advertising NYCRL section 51 -- "for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade" | Context Classification: fee association, client solicitation, professional credential display, revenue linkage | Commercial purpose analysis per use with fee/revenue correlation data | ✓ |
| No Written Consent NYCRL section 51 -- "without having first obtained the written consent" | Binary Consent Test: exhaustive search of all agreements, correspondence, and discovery for any written authorization | Consent gap certification with adversary admissions (RFA responses, BOP, deposition) | ✓ |
Every common defense to a right-of-publicity claim has a systematic, evidence-based counter. The system prepares responses before they are raised.
| Defense Raised | System Response | How It Works |
|---|---|---|
| Newsworthiness / First Amendment | Neutralized Commercial purpose proof |
The Classification step tags every use with its commercial context. Uses tied to fee generation, client solicitation, or professional advertising are not newsworthy as a matter of law. |
| Incidental Use | Neutralized Central role demonstration |
The Publication Ledger shows the plaintiff's name is not incidental -- it appears as the named professional on filings, the credentialed attorney on client-facing materials, and the listed practitioner on the firm's public presence. |
| Implied Consent | Neutralized Statutory text controls |
NY Civil Rights Law requires written consent. The Consent Gap Analysis documents the complete absence of any written authorization. Implied consent is legally insufficient under the statute. |
| Federal Preemption | Neutralized State law independence |
Sections 50-51 protect the right of privacy/publicity -- a right not addressed by federal patent or trademark law. Established precedent confirms these state claims are not preempted. |
| Single Publication Rule | Neutralized Discrete use counting |
Each filing, each correspondence, each website display is a separate "publication" with its own date, audience, and commercial context. The Publication Ledger treats each as a distinct statutory event, defeating aggregation into a single act. |
The Litman Method was developed and validated in an active New York Supreme Court case. These are real numbers from a real litigation.
Purpose-built technology that transforms raw data into litigation-ready evidence packages. No manual document review. No narrative guesswork.
Automated identification and cataloging of every instance where the plaintiff's name appears in public records, filings, websites, and correspondence.
Automated retrieval from government databases, patent office APIs, web archives, email systems, and document repositories. OCR extraction from scanned documents.
Visual timelines, chronologies, and analytical dashboards that make complex evidence patterns immediately comprehensible to judges and juries.
Bates-numbered document production with inline viewer, search, and coding. Ready for CPLR-compliant discovery responses out of the box.
Multi-methodology damages engine: statutory damages per violation, unjust enrichment from fee analysis, reasonable royalty, and market-value models.
Generates complaint drafts, RFA sets, MSJ briefs with exhibit indices, deposition preparation materials, and settlement presentations from the evidence corpus.
Most right-of-publicity cases fail because they are argued as narratives. The Litman Method reframes them as discrete, documented statutory violations -- each independently provable, collectively devastating.
Contact Us to Discuss Your Case