New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-07-05
A REMEDY NEEDED.

Commenting the other day on the Court of APP
peals decision In the Robertson case denying
the existence Of the right of privacy The Trib-
une declared that if no protection against the
misuse of a private persons portrait could be
found in equity such protection must be sought
in affirmative legislation. At that time only
brief extracts from the opinions had been pub
lished. We are glad to note on reviewing the
full prevailing opinion that Chief Judge Parker
similarly points to legislation as proper
remedy for the real evil complained Of by the
young woman whose portrait was widely pub
lished without her consent TO advertise brand
of -four. The chief judge says:
The legislative body could very we'll interfere
and arbitrarily provide that one should be
permitted for his selfish purpose to use
the picture the name of another for adver-
Using purposes without his consent. In such
event no embarrassment would result to the
general body of the law, for the rule would be
applicable only to cases provided for by the
statute.
1t is to be hoped that this judicial hint will
bear fruit at the next session of the legislature.
At present private persons are at the mercy of
every INSCRIPTIONS advertiser who may wish
to exploit them. II they are pictured In dis
graceful situations or in connection with adj
yertisements of such character as TO cast
obloquy upon them they can only bring action
for libel. That is at best unsatisfactory
remedy and even that is not available when
the nature Of the picture does not distinctly re-
fleet upon the person portrayed. Yet professed-
ly complimentary pictures may be injurious,
while they offer no ground for action, according
10 the new ruling. A young woman in private
life whose portrait is sent broadcast is likely
to be thought by many people vain or bold.
Supposing that she consents to the pUblica-
ton, they will think i'll of her Thus she may
be seriously wronged by the unauthorized use
of her picture She would suffer not merely a
fanciful injury from the infringement of a
theoretical right Of privacy. but might easily
lose her reputation for modesty with persons
who recognized her picture without knowing
the circumstances Of its publication. In his
dissenting opinion. in which two other Judges
concurred Judge Gray held that this injury
was one which n court OF equity ought 10 pre-
vent. That view did not prevail, but the pict-
ure which Judge Gray drew of the wrongs for
which the law as interpreted offers no remedy
is worthy of attention. He said:
Security OF person is as necessary as the
security of property. and for that complete per-
sonal security which will result in the peaceful
and wholesome enjoyment OF ones privileges as
a member OF society there should be afforded
protection, not only against the scandalous
portraiture and display of ones features and
person, but against the display and thereof
for another's commercial purposes or gain The
proposition Is to me an inconceivab BILE one that
these defendants may. unauthorizedly, the
likeness OF this young woman upon their ad-
vertisements as a method of attracting wide
spread public attention 10 their wares and that
she must submit TO the Notifying notoriety
without right to invoke the exercise Of the pre-
ventive power OF court Of equity.
1t seems that for the present she must so
submit, but now that the lack OF protection In
clearly understood 1t is not to be supposed that
the men OF this State will long leave the feel
ings and regulations of their wives and daugh-
tiers exposed 10 selfish assault