New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1874-02-12
Tsse Right. 80 Gan's sracc.

The right OF n man to control the publi-
cation of his own features is n rather deli
cate point of personal law which has never
been sufficiently calculated. The wcll-known
practice of photographers in exhibiting copies
of the portraits which they have taken is one
which, ON some grounds, may be deemed
o.'cn to grave exceptions. We recall but
ono instance where il has come before the
'ourts, and then only incidentally. Some
Years ago a Brooklyn photographer exhibited
III the showcase ut his street door the picture
OF lady who had sat to HIM. Her brother
called upon him and requested him to re-
move it, rs the publicity was dstasiciul 10
her. The photographer declined to comply,
and The young lady's brother thcrcupon
smashed the case, and removed the obriox-
;!-ise. rs ssS sasensSev "a
also assaulted he Sbstifatc photographer
The suit which followed turned chiefly upon
the violence committed by the chivalrous
assailant. No expression of judicial opinion
was had upon the point which caused the
difficulty.
The position Of the Illustrated papers in
the matter might also repay inspection. An
evening: contemporary, which some time since
won considerable n0t0ricty in connection
with a balloon enterprise, has laid down the
principles which, in this regard, are to noy-
ern It's action. Having prepared for publ
cation portrait Of n lady whose husband is
in high official position under the present
Administration, the picture was reluctantly
suppressed ut the request of the latter on the
assurance that ii was the lady's wish. At
the same tinic il announced that this was the
last time such concession would be made
to private prajudccs. 1t proclaimed the
doctrine that neither man nor woman had
any property i'll the reflection of their lca-
lures, and that hereafter in Il similar case it
should not "icel compelled to regard the
wishes or requests of the party concerned
And while it was quite confident of the
propricty of this course rs a matter of de-
ccncy and taste, it was prepared to test the
legality of il in the courts.
In the former aspect, the question pre-
SCENTS little difficulty. No reputable journal,
we are sure, would disregard the wish of Il
lady under such circumstances, and still less,
make coarse boast of its intention uni
| formly to disregard it. But the legal rights
in the matter are much less definitely fixed
than might be desired. The same Journal
| announced in one Of its early impressions
| that it would give representations of private
| wedding parties whenever it lcis inclined,
and that it "should not feel compelled to
regard the objections of the parties con-
cerned." In cases like these it is difficult TO
draw the precise line where liberty ends and
| license begins. Men oil right lecilD57 anu
true delicacy know by instinct what is cor
rect and what is a violation Of personal
rights and domestic privacy. But men OF
right feeling and true delicacy are not always
in control of illustrated papers. If the por-
traits thus published sin disregard of wishes
and requests" were uniformly artistic or ap-
| proXimately like, one part OF the objection,
though not the essential part, would vanish.
But they are often such hideous caricaturcs
as ts amount to post &c pictorial libels. Tie
paper we speak of published day or two
after his death what it called a portrait OF
Charles Astor Bristed. The face depicted
might have belonged to a butcher or q drO-
yer, or an editor of the paper in which it
appeared, but not trace of the intellect
and high-breeding marked in every feature
of its pretended subject. Such pictures as
this lend probability to the histories Of the
blocks made to do duty in succession for the
. notorious burglar or the distinguished divine
1t may be said that very few people really
object to having their portraits published
That is probably true, yet it is not exactly
to the point. The question is not whethcl
it is generally right and proper for an illus
tratcd paper to publish such portraits rs il
NAV deem of interest TO its. readers, but
whether such portraits may be rightfully and
propcrly published in defiance of their pro
totypes. IL would certainly be a most inter
estinc case for court of law.-N. ]. Times