distinguishing personal right of privacy, which might give rise to a claim for personal injuries for hurt feelings caused by publication of one’s picture, from that person’s “right in the publicity value of his photograph, i.e., the right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing his picture”
How later courts described this case
- distinguishing personal right of privacy, which might give rise to a claim for personal injuries for hurt feelings caused by publication of one’s picture, from that person’s “right in the publicity value of his photograph, i.e., the right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing his picture”
- “right of privacy, i. e., a personal and non-assignable right not to have [one’s] feelings hurt ..”
- "We think that, in addition to and independent of that right of privacy ... a man has a right in the publicity value of his photograph, i.e., the right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing his picture.... For it is common knowledge that many prominent persons... far from having their feelings bruised through public exposure of their likenesses, would feel sorely deprived if they no longer received money for authorizing advertisements...."
- “We think that, in addition to and independent of that right of privacy . . . a [hu]man has a right in the publicity value of [their] photograph, i.e., the right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing [their] picture, and that such a grant may validly be made ‘in gross,’ i.e., without an accompanying transfer of a business or of anything else.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SWAN, Chief Judge
(concurring in part).
I agree that the cause should he reversed and remanded, and I concur in so much of the opinion as deals with the defendant’s liability for intentionally inducing a ball-player to breach a contract which gave plaintiff the exclusive privilege of using his picture.