New-York tribune., 1901-07-25
THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY,

The Appellate Division OF the Supreme Court,
at Rochester, has established new and needed
safeguard for private rights In affirming the
much talked of decision of Justice Davy in the
suit of Abigail Robinson against the Rochester
Folding Box Company and the Iockport Mill
ing Company the court holds that person
has a good cause Of action for the use of his
portrait without authority and may collect dam
ages for feelings or reputation injured by such
unauthorized publication. The plaintiff was
retiring young woman who had never been In
public life and had never given her picture to
the public. The defendants obtained copy of
a photograph taken for distribution solely
among her family and personal friends, and not
otherwise distributed by her, and used lith-
ographs of it to advertise brand of flour. She
brought suit to recover damages for this viola
ton of her privacy and the injury caused by the
reputation for boldness and bad taste which
such publication tended 20 give her. Justice
Davy overruled the demurrer, which asserted
that the law took no cOgniZance OF mental
anguish and that she could not recover dam
ages even though II was admitted that she had
suffered humiliation and been made III by the
circulation OF her picture Now the Appellate
Division sustans Justice Dnvy and allows the
plaintiff TO go on and recover such damages as
she can convince jury she has suffered
The conclusion reached In this case is pleas
ant example Of the power of the courts 10 meet
new wrongs developed by the conditions of
modern life. Justice Rumsey, who writes the
opinion. comedies that there is no exact prece-
dent for the plaintiffs claim. That is natural.
II is only within recent years that the resources
of photography and the enterprise Of adverts-
ers have made such invasions of privacy posi-
Bile. few years ago, moreover, respectable
women in private life would never have
dreamed of giving their pictures for mscellane-
GUS publication. The portraits Of men and
women in official position, on the stage. or other
wise Of legitimate public interest were pub
lished. But women did not court publicity, and
person who had done nothing but get some
body TO write about her as a Harlem belle or
a Virginia beauty" did not allow herself TO be
paraded before the public for mere notoriety.
SO common now is the ambition 10 ones
face in print and so far has gone the habit of
publishing private persons pictures with their
good will. that many publishers have become
demoralized and assume that everybodys face
is public property, just these -four adver-
tlsers did.
Justice Rumsey, however holds that a per
sons features are private property and If n
new form Of invasion of private property has
been devised the law can keep pace with the
times and step in to protect it, The Justice
says that ones features limbs if of notice
able beauty, may be profitable possession
An attempt to photograph model so that her
! picture could be sold to a painter to be used
In place Of the original, thus de1riving her of
an opportunity to make n profit from the use Of
her own features, would certainly be actlonable
and person who dwelt in private with no In
| tention of thus using her face or form did not
possess fewer rights in her own person This
ruling Is entirely commendable. Respectable
advertisers and publishers will fully recognize
its Justice and the irresponsible who by their
invasions of privacy have given a bad name to
others and done much TO vulgarize public taste
and biunt the edge of refined feelings concern
| ing pictorial publicity should be compelled TO
reform. The kodak fiend and those who mr.
chase his stolen shots at people should also take
warning. Perhaps he has the legal right TO
take such views as he can from anv puhlic
place, but he has no legal right to publish his
snapshots of private individuals without their
consent.