The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-07-28
PARKER IS "CALLED.
Girl Quotes His Own Decision in Fa-
vor of Camera Fiends.

Rochester, N. Y, July 2s.-Judge
Parker's recent statement that he did
not propose to be photographed by
camera men. as a mater of personal
night, has called forth a protest from
Miss Abigail Robertson of this city,
the young woman VINO Last year sued
for publishing her likeness on one of
their advertisements, and whose
prayer for relief was denied by the
court of appeals, of which Judge Par
ker was and still is chief justice
Miss Robertson has sent "A letter to
Judge Parker Among other things,
Miss Robertson says:
My Dear Sir: 1 read in the press
dispatches yesterday afternoon that
Mrs. Parker was obliged to leave
home to avoid the annoyance of ubi-
quitous photographers, notwithstand-
Ing the warning given by you and re-
ported in the same dispatches last
saturday morning, in which it was an
nounced that that would be the last
day of promiscuous photographing of
yourself and family, and wherein you
are quoted as saying, I reserve the
right to put my hands in my pockets
and assume comfortable attitudes
without being everlastingly afraid
that I shall be snapped by some fell
low with a camera
II take this opportunity to remind
you that you have no such right as
that which you assert.
ST have high authority for my state
ment, being nothing less than a de-
cision of the court of appeals of this
state, wherein you wrote the prevail
ing opinion. The action was one in
which I was the plaintiff.
You may recollect that the facts in
that case were undisputed, and that it
was admitted that the defendants,
without my knowledge or consent, and
knowing that they had no right or au-
thority so to do, had secured my
photograph and, having caused it to
Iao 10 orb a6 in
size, had circulated about $4,000
copies thereof as an advertisement of
the comm oditieS in which one of the
defendants dealt; that the likenesses
warehouses, saloons, and other pub
lie places and had been recognized by
my friends and others; that my good
name had been attacked, and as a con-
sequence I desired an injunction
against the defendants restraining the
further use thereof.
You referred to my cause of action
as a 'so-called' right of privacy and ad-
mitted that such publicity which some
find agreeable is to plaintiff distaste-
full, and that 1 suffered mental distress,
when others would have appreciated
the compliment to their beauty and
in an opinion 16 pages long you arriv-
ed at the conclusion that 1 had no
rights that could be protected by your
tribunal.
ITO be perfectly fair to you, ought
TO say LndI you expressly eACSpIcO
from the effect of your decision any
publication under similar circumstan-
ces which was in its nature libelous. 1t
necessarily follows, therefore, when you
now say that you reserve the right not
to be photographed with your hands in
your pockets or in other comfortable
either that you are asserting
a right for yourself and your family
which you are unwilling to accord to
litigants before your court, or else that
there is something in the attitude sug-
gested of such nature that repro
duction of it with Photographic exact
ness would be necessarily libelous. 1t is
not apparent how your likeness in the
attitude suggested could be libeIous, at
least, not as long as you kept your
hands in your own pockets.
81 know of no reason why you or
your family have any rights of the ma
ture suggested which do not equally
belong to me. Indeed, as between us.
[ submit that I was much more enti-
tied to protection than you. 1 was a
poor girl making my living by my daily
efforts and never had courted publicity
in any manner. I had never appeared
solicited any favor at its hands. You,
on the other hand, are a candidate for |
the highest Office in the gift of the |
people of the United States, and that
fact makes you legitimate center of
public interest.
than merely voluntary, and it may |
fairly be said that you have invited the |
which we have both found to |
De somewhat annoying.
ITO this extent, at least, it would |
seem to me that the right which you /
ienied me, but which you now assert |
,or yourself, was stronger in my case