New-York tribune., 1902-06-28
"FLOTR OF THE FAMILY" CASE.
WAS USED FOR ADVERTISING PUR-
POSES NON-SUITED.
TBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE


Rochester June "a remarkable litigation,
known throughout the State as the flour Of the
family case. which has attracted comment IN thls
country and in Europe. was decided by the court
Of Appeals to-day against the pretty pialntn I'er
a long continuance in the courts
The action is entitled Margaret l. beli dS
Guardian for Abigail Robertson. VS.. the Rochester
Folding Box Company and the Franklin Allls COM
pany, of Lockport.'' and il was begun TO recover
sl5oo from the defendants using the picture Of
the Robertson girl the printed advertisements
barrels and -four sacks of the milling company
The first step in the was a proceeding 1or an
injunction, restraining the defendants from uslis
the picture. demurrer was filed TO the compliant
and the argument was heard before Supreme court
Justice John NJ. Davy. who handed down &C.
cision holding that a woman's beauty is her IN
violate property and not public material Tor aQ-
Eertlsers aao lli 9 II , b ~ fr and reputation
for her portrait 20 be posted etnsplcously IN PuOc
decision Sagsed pus a e9%ert chieas0 nsaefs
San Francesca New ork ana ,s I Ines
published the decision in full An appeal was
sep 3 IN fG Tarch fiT @ foGT Of thu @ asee the fifth
sitting; handed down an order for re-afs9- fs5
ings The case was re-argued before the Appel
late Division and the five justices were unanimous
in sustaining the lower court Permission TO ap-
peal to the higher court was asked ana IN a 5 ae
relief, but formulated these two questions TO be
FirstVDoss the Complainant in the action state a
cause Of action against the defendants or either
Second-Does the complaint in the action state a
cause against the defendants or either OF
them7
:.Roberson vs. Rochester Folding Box Company
and one Judgment reversed and questions certl-
fed answered IL the negative. without costs, with
leave to plaintiff serve an amended complaint
within twenty days. also without costs
In effect, the court holds that there is no cause
Of action and that the fair name of Miss Robertson
was injured or her privacy trespassed upon by
the of her picture an advertising medium
Chief Judge Parker. in his opinion, considers a
length the right Of privacy He says IN nj:
opinion
The so-caled right of privacy is. as the phras'
suggests, founded upon the claim that man ha'
without having his picture published. ms business
enterprises discussed his eccentrlcltles com
rnenteG upon. either in handbills. catalogues pc
rioSicais newspapers. necessarily, tflaI li
things which may be written or published o
him must be spoken of him by ms nelShbors
whether the comment he favorable or otferWlse
the law through the instrumentality Of a court Q
equity the attempts To logically apply the primer
ple will necessarily result not only IN vast lnoull
of litigation. but in litigation bordering on the an
doctrine. be confined 10 the restrain
Of the publication of likeness. but must neces
sa-jlv embrace well the publication OF a wore
ylictlire a comment upon ones looks, conduct. DO
r1estic relations or habits.
Chief Judge Parker ends his opinion by saying:
An examination Of authorities leads us TO th'
conclusion that the So-caled right OF privacy ha:
denCe nd as we il. the doctrine cannot nov
be Incorporated without doing violence to settled
Trincipies of law. by which the profession and tbs
public have long beer guided.
The Court of Appeals, by vote Of four to three
virtually dismissed the complaint