The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-08-12
RIGHT OF PRIVACY
Passed GA by a New York Judge 8ez
fhx. First Time.

the First Time.
Rochester On. 10 Cor. New York Sun.
1usrlce DaWy, OF the supreme court, has
! oPeTrlleo the demurrer to the complaint
OF Abigail Robertson, the eighteen year
| Old girl who brought suit against the
fnAllkln Mills company, OF Leckport, and
The Rochester Folding Box counDauv for
$1,000 damages Miss Robertson. who ia
very beautiful GIRL found that. un-
known to herself, her portrait was being
used by the defendant company for an
advertisement for Flour of the Family
Her chief ground in bringing suit was
that her right OF privacy had been IN
waded, a point never before passed upon
in the courts OF this country. In his de-
| cision Justice DaEy says:
Tt does not appear from the complaint
In this action that the plaintiff Is within
| the category of what might be dominated
public character. She is undoubtedly a
young woman of rare beauty, and this
she enjoys rs a private citizen. 1t is very
natural, If the plaintiff Is OF a modest and
recurring nature, that any such publicity
would be extremely disagreeable and Of
fensive to her. 1t is not Impossible
therefore. that she has suffered and con-
t1nues to suffer great mental INJURY and
distress. In other words, there is pIausi-
bic grounds for the existence of the dis
tress and injury alleged in her complaint
1t cannot be said that 1t is a pure fabri-
cation or fancy. The act Is such that
every person can readily see might cause,
and probably did cause, mental distress
and injury to her nervous system.
Take any modest and refined young
woman, possessed of more than ordinary
beauty and intelligence, situated in like
circums tanceS as the plaintiff, and she
might naturally be extremely shocked
and wounded in seeing a photographic
likeness Of her posted in public places
as an advertisement of some enterp, Using
business firm To permit every person
to use a photographic likeness of the
plaintiff to advertise their business, and
yet say there is no power in the courts to
prevent it, would be asserting PROPOSE
ton at war with the principles of justice
and equity and in violation Of the sacred
right OF privacy. Every personal interest
which she possesses must be regarded as
private, especially when the public has
acquired no right to them.
Privacy Is regarded as a product Of
civilization. 1t was unsought and I'M
known among the barbarous tribes. 1t
implies an improved and progressive con-
dition Of the people in cultivated manners
and customs, with well-defined and re-
spected domestic relations. The privacy
Of the home in every civilized country is
regarded as sacred. and when it Is invad-
vidual happiness. 1t seems to me, there
fore, that the extension and development
OF the law so as to protect the right Of
privacy should keep abreast with the ad-
Hancement of ciViliZat ton. When private
and domestic life is invaded, which brings
Pain and distress of mind and destroys
the pleasure and happiness Of domestic
life, the courts ought to have power to
protect the individual from such an in
VaSion.
For years there has existed in the pub
lie mind feeling that the law was too
lax in affording some remedy for the I'M
authorized circulation of portraits Of pri-
vate persons, and this invasion of privacy
has been keenly felt by the public. 1t
may be asked how the circulation of these
photographic advertisements affect the
plaintiff in her rights OF privacy. 1t is
evident that the acts of the defendants
in printing and posting her likeness in
public places as an advertisement to sell
their flour invites public criticism and
brings her name into more or less unen-
Viable notoriety, and to a certain extent
in1licts injury to her reputation and feel
ing, especially If she desires a life of pri-
Vacy, which she has a right to enjoy. To
permit every person to print and use the
likeness Of the plaintiff to advertise their
business, and yet say there is no power in
the court to protect her, would be assert
ing a proposition at war with the princi-
pies Of justice and equity. Are we to rely
upon the courts for the protection Of ones
goods and chattels, and is there no power
TO protect the plaintiffs reputation or
right of privacy against circulating and
posting these Autographs in public places
unless it be by the horsewhip OF some
other unlawful act? If her photographic
likeness, owing to her beauty, is of great
value as a trademark or an advertising
medium, it IS a property right which be-
longs to her and cannot be taken from
her without her consent. She has a right
to say that without her consent, these
photographic copies Of her likeness shall
ants"