see also Howell v. New York Post, 81 N.Y.2d 115, 124, 596 N.Y.S.2d 350, 355, 612 N.E.2d 699 (1993). Under New York law, “[i]f a sale of a photograph for profit, which otherwise would be for trade purposes, is used in ‘reasonable connection’ with the publication of a ‘matter of public interest,’ ” both the sale and the subsequent “use” of the photograph are “privileged and constitute[ ] constitutionally protected free speech” and hence fall under the newsworthiness and public interest exceptions to Sections 50 and 51. Barrows v. Rozansky, 111 A.D.2d 105, 108, 489 N.Y.S.2d 481, 485 (1st Dep’t 1985) (quoting Davis v. High Society Magazine, 90 A.D.2d 374, 381, 457 N.Y.S.2d 308 (2d Dep’t 1982)); see also Costlow v. Cusimano, 34 A.D.2d 196, 197-98, 311 N.Y.S.2d 92, 93-94 (4th Dep’t 1970) (<HOLDING>). Put another way, where “a plaintiffs picture
holding that when the district court disposed of the adea claims the pendent claims became subject to dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims holding that photographers presentation for profit of photograph was insufficient basis for sections 50 and 51 claims where subject matter of photograph and accompanying article were within the area of legitimate public interest holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction