Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-03-31

bill to prevent the use for advertising pur-
poses of the portraits of women without
their consent. OF course prime object of
the proposed law rs to prevent the vendors
of wares printing upon their labels, or
inclosing in their packages of goods, pho
graphs of the faces and forms of women
prominent in public life-as has been done
with the portrait of the features and per-
son of the wife of the President and the
women of families of distinguished men.
But these are entitled to no more protec-
ton than the members of the family of
any other citizens, and hence the law pro-
posed is general In its application The
Journal contends that no harm has ever
resulted to society from the general use of
the portraits of such women as Queen
Victoria, the Princess of Wales, Florence
Nightingale, Grace Darling, Clara Barton,
Ida Lewis, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Hayes,
Mrs. Stanton, the great singers and
actresses, and the women notable as phil
anthropists or for beauty, daring or great
works. 1t insists that none of these have
been treated with less respect because their
portraits have been made public property,
nor have they suffered in loss of charac-
ter or popularity because their por-
traits have been used as advertising
features, in advoring labels, or packages
of goods, or increasing the attractiveness
of advertisements. 1t claims that public
people must expect this use of their por
traits as part of the public life; that the
the public really acquire property right
to the use of protraits of people who are
sufficiently appreciated to make the posses
sion of their portraits desired by large
numbers of citizens. This is all well
enough, but the claim of right is ILL
founded. The women of the land have
a right superior to any public claim, to
have their portraits dispensed by their
consent only If one has not the right to
privacy in this matter as well as in other
domestic concerns, then the limitation
upon the use of portraits cannot be defined
at all. Evidently the right to reproduce
in portraiture ones features, is personal
one and belongs to the owner of the face, or
In case of minors, to the guardian. No objec-
presentation Of the portraits of any people;
it is the improper use of personal pictures,
that the offense lies. The law certainly
should forbid the use of such prints, for to
expose persons portrait in manner to
bring the blush of shame to the cheek, is
an offense in the nature of libel. 1t is
against such uses that the bill under de-
bate is aimed, and the only effective
method of reaching them is to make the
consent of the owner of the face necessary
to the use of the picture. 1t is admitted
that there is a use of these portraits that is
grossly offensive and very humiliating to the
person most interested, which yet escapes
the law prohibiting immoral publica-
tions, and such will be reached by the pro-
posed measure. The Journal ingeniously
argues that if sometimes criticism of a
person is coarse, or her face is misused in
portraiture, or in distribution of a correct
portrait, that these are but the unfortu-
nate and inevitable penalties of public
life and of beauty. But the object of the
laws should be to protect people from any
undeserved penalties of this character. If
one has not deserved i'll, why should her
portrait be so used as to scandalize her
name. and why should not the law inter
vene to save her from this humiliation
and disgrace? The protest of the bill is
not an evidence of snobbery, or of exclus-
iveness it is simply a protest against
making the privacy of life indecently pub
lie, and to just that extent it is proposed
to fortify and protect the personal right to
have ones features copied in print.