In Spiegel v. Schulmann (2006 U.S. Dist. [ED NY 2006], affd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 604 F3d 72, 2010 WL 1791417 [2d Cir 2010]), the court rejected claims by a plaintiff who, like plaintiff here, had signed a written release, but nevertheless tried to assert Section 51 claims in reliance on Russell. In Spiegel, the plaintiff argued that an altered photograph of his torso was being used in an unflattering manner in advertisements for defendants' "Evolve" nutrition program. The plaintiff contended that, although he signed a release and "understood that his photograph would be used to show his torso before entry into the program," he "neither agreed to alteration of the photograph nor anticipated that it would be used in any other way" The court rejected this argument, stating that "the release which Spiegel signed contained no such limitations" (id.). Instead, Spiegel signed a broad release that was similarly worded to the release signed by plaintiff here (id.). Rejecting Spiegel's arguments -- the same advanced by plaintiff here -- the court expressly found that the modern release at issue was "unlike the release in ... Russell: This release does not relate to a single photograph or document, much less contain any language limiting the use of that photograph or document. To the contrary, the release expressly provides that Spiegel may be "photographed," and that any photographs taken of Spiegel may be used "in any manner." Since there is no question as to the very broad scope of Spiegel's written consent, there is no genuine issue of material fact to be determined by a jury. Spiegel is not entitled to relief under New York Civil Rights Law 51(id.)