The Washington times., 1902-09-14
HAS A BEAUTIFUL GIRL THE
RIGHT TO HER OWN FACE?

i, in this case has been able to discover,
does it's existence seem to have been
asserted prior to about the year 1890.
when it was presented with attractive
ness and with no inconsiderable ability
in the Harvard Law Review tvol-
page 1879 in an article entitled, Rights
OF Citizen-To His Reputation.
The Right of Privacy.
"The so-called right CT privacy is. as
the phrase suggests. founded upon the
claim that man has the right to pass
through this world, if he wills. without
having his picture published, his busi-
ness enterprises discussed, his success
full experiments written up for the bene-
fit of others. or his eccentricities COM
mented upon either in handbills. cir
culars. catalogues. periodicals, or news
papers, and. necessarily, that the things
which may not be written and published
OF him must not be spoken OF him by
his neighbors, whether the comment Re
favorable or otherwise.
+ while most persons would much pre-
/ fer to have good likeness of them
/ selves appear in responsible periodical
| or leading newspaper rather than upon
| an advertising card or sheet, the doc
trine which the courts are asked to cre-
| ate for this case would apply as well.
TO the one publication as to the other.
for the principle which q court of equity
is asked to assert in this action is en-
/ forceable in equity. and that the publi-
cation OF that which purports to be a
portrait of another person. even If OBJ
| tanned upon the street by an impertinent
I individual with camera, will be re-
| strained in equity on the ground that
an individual has the right to prevent
his features frGm becoming known to
those outside of the circle of friends
and acquaintarces.
If sdrii ! nrinciple be Incorporated into
the body OF the law through the instru-
mentality OF court of equity, the at
tempt to logically apply the principle
will necessarily result not only in
vast amount of litigation but in litiga--
tion bordering upon the absurd. for the
right of privacy. once established as
legal doctrine. cannot be confined to the
restraint of the publication of a like
ness, but must necessarily embrace as
well the publication of a word picture,
comment upon ones looks, domestic
relations. conduct or habits. And with
the right of privacy once legally assert
ed. it would necessarily be held to in
clude the same thing il spoken instead
OF printed. for one as we'll as the other
inyades the right to he absolutely let
alone. An insight would certainly be in
violation of such q right. and with many
persons would more seriously wound the
feelings than the publication of their
picture.
IAN examination of the authorities
leads us to the conclusion that the So
called right OF privacy has not as yet
found an abiding place in our jurispru-
Gence. and as we view it the doctrine
cannot now be Incorporated without do
ing violence to settled principles of law
by which the profession and the public
have long been guided
The judgment of the appellate d.
vision and of the special term should
Re reversed and questions certified an
swered in the negative, without costs.
and with leave to plaintiff 10 serve
on amended complaint within twenty
days, also without costs
The dissenting opinion is by Judge
Gray. In part he says:
Security OF person is as necessary as
the security o. property. and for chat
complete personal security which Will
result in the peaceful and wholesome
enjoyment Of cne's privileges as q mem
ber of society there should be afforded
protection. not only against the scan
dalous portraiture and display Of ones
features and person. but against tia
display and use thereof for another's
commercial purposes or gain.
The proposition is 10 me an incon-
ceivable enc that these defendants may,
unauthofizedly. use the likeness OF this
young woman upon their ADVERTISE
ments as method of attracting wide-
spread public attention TO their wares.
end that she must submit to the NOR
tifying notoriety without right to in
woke tie exercise of the preventive
power of court of equity"