Datasets:
wildercb
/
PrivacyTextBooks1.2

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
2
text
stringlengths
0
118
act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear”).
272. Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co., 67 A. 392, 394 (N.J. 1907).
273. Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 64 N.E. 442,442,442-43,447-48
(N.Y. 1902).
274. Editorial, “The Right of Privacy,” New York Times, Aug. 23, 1902, at 8,
reprinted in Denis O’Brien, “The Right of Privacy,” 2 Columbia Law Review 437,
438 (1902).
275. Editorial, New York Times, Aug. 12, 1902.
276. Comment, “An Actionable Right to Privacy? Roberson v. Rochester
Folding Box Co.,” 12 Yale Law Journal 35, 36 (1902).
277. Denis O’Brien, “Right of Privacy,” 437.
278. See, e.g., Irwin R. Kramer, “The Birth of Privacy Law: A Century Since
Warren and Brandeis,” 39 Catholic University Law Review 703, 717 (1990) (noting
Notes to Pages 155-158
2 39
that the statutes “made it both a tort and a misdemeanor ... to use another’s name,
portrait, or picture for commercial purposes without the subject’s consent”).
279. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§50, 51 (McKinney 1992).
280. Restatement (Second) of Torts §652C & cmt. c (1977).
281. Hauch, “Protecting Private Facts in France,” 1223.
282. Ruth Redmond-Cooper, “The Press and the Law of Privacy,” 34 Interna­
tional and Comparative Law Q uarterly 769, 772 (1985); James Whitman, “The Two
Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty,” 113 Yale Law Journal 1151,
1175 (2004).
283. Bruce W. Sanford, Libel and Privacy §2.4, at 43 (2d ed. 1991). For more on
the law of appropriation in Germany and France, see Ansgar Ohly & Agnes Lucas-
Schloetter, Privacy, Property, and Personality: C ivil Law Perspectives on Commercial
Appropriation (2005).
284. Von Hannover v. Germany, [2004] ECHR 294 (23 June 2004), at U50.
285. Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa, Inc., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591.
286. See generally Robert C. Post, “Rereading Warren and Brandeis: Privacy,
Property, and Appropriation,” 41 Case Western Reserve Law Review (A 1 (1991) (con­
trasting the “property” and “dignity” rationales for the tort of appropriation).
287. Edward J. Bloustein, “Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer
to Dean Prosser,” 39 New York U niversity Law Review 962, 987 (1964).
288. Prosser, “Privacy,” 406.
289. Jonathan Kahn, “Bringing Dignity Back to Light: Publicity Rights and
the Eclipse of the Tort of Appropriation of Identity,” 17 Cardozo A rts and Enter­
tainm ent Law Journal 213, 223 (1999). A new tort, known as the “right of pub­
licity,” has emerged to redress violations of property rights in one’s name or like­
ness. See, e.g., Thomas McCarthy, The Rights o f Publicity and Privacy §5.63 (1991)
(“Simplistically put, while the appropriation branch of the right of privacy is in­
vaded by an injury to the psyche, the right of publicity is infringed by an injury
to the pocketbook”).
290. David A. Elder, The Law o f Privacy §6:1, at 375 (1991) (quoting McQueen v.
Wilson, 161 S.E.2d 63, 66 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968), rev’d on other grounds, 162 S.E.2d
313 (Ga. 1968)).
291. See Andrew J. McClurg, “A Thousand Words Are Worth a Picture: A Pri­
vacy Tort Response to Consumer Data Profiling,” 98 Northwestern U niversity Law
Review 63, 109, 114 (2003) (arguing that Prosser’s characterization of appropria­
tion as vindicating property interests obscured the dignitary interests the tort pro­
tected, and noting that “[m]odem courts are prone to subsuming the privacy claim
under the label of publicity”).
292. Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68, 68, 69, 70, 80 (Ga.
1905).
293. Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 64 N.E. 442, 449 (N.Y. 1902)
(Gray, J., dissenting).
294. Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co., 67 A. 392, 392 (N.J. 1907). The court
granted the injunction. Id. at 395.
295. Onassis v. Christian Dior-New York, Inc., 472 N.Y.S.2d 254, 257 (Sup. Ct.
1984).
296. Quoted in Beate Rossler, The Value o f Privacy 14-15 (2005).
297. Arthur Miller, The Crucible 133 (Penguin Books 1995) (1953).
240
Notes to Pages 158-161
298. Van Vechten Veeder, “The History and Theory of Defamation,” 3 Co­
lum bia Law Review 546, 563 (1903).
299. Rodney A. Smolla, Law o f D efam ation, at 1-4 (2d ed. 1999).
300. Restatement (Second) of Torts §558(a) (1977).
301. Id. at §559.
302. Id. at §652E; Gary T. Schwartz, “Explaining and Justifying a Limited Tort
of False Light Invasion of Privacy,” 41 Case W estern Reserve Law Review 885, 885
(1991) (noting that Warren and Brandeis’s article led to decisions that Prosser later
labeled the false-light tort). Although there is a significant amount of overlap be­
tween the two torts, false light has a more expansive view of the harm caused by
distortion. While defamation requires proof of reputational harm, false light does
not, and plaintiffs can be compensated solely for emotional distress. Id. at 887.
303. Restatement (Second) of Torts §652E cmt. b.
304. Constitution of the Republic of Hungary art. 59; Poland, The Constitu­
tional Act of 1997, art. 47; Constitution of the Portuguese Republic art. 26; Con­
stitution of the Russian Federation art. 23 (1993); Constitution of the Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka art. 14(1) (1978); quoted in Privacy and H um an
Rights, 543, 812, 828, 850, 951.
305. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res
217A(m), UN Doc A/Res/810 (1948).
306. Janmejay Rai & Barunesh Chandra, “India,” in International Libel and P ri­
vacy Handbook 7-1, 7-2 (Charles J. Glasser, Jr., ed., 2006).
307. Supreme Court, May 27, 1997, Minshu 51-5-2024; quoted in International
Libel and Privacy Handbook 8-1, 8-2 (Charles J. Glasser, Jr., ed., 2006).
308. Quoted in Daniel Buchanan, Japanese Proverbs and Sayings 120 (1965).
309. Peter F. Carter-Ruck & Rupert Eliott, Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander 18
(5th ed. 1997); Maryann McMahon, “Defamation Claims in Europe: A Survey of
the Legal Armory,” 19 Communications Lawyer 24 (2002).
310. The statutory provisions are Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a(d); Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681i; and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,
20 U.S.C. §1232g(a) (2).
311. See Dep’t of Health, Educ., & Welfare, Records, xx-xxiii; OECD Privacy
Guidelines; European Union Data Protection Directive, art. 6. For more back­
ground on the OECD Privacy Guidelines, see Joel R. Reidenberg, “Restoring
Americans’ Privacy in Electronic Commerce,” 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal