Show IS hilt OWN OW JUJu ol tb Nw New York ia prams prem has hll rendered a decision Ioa awarding dam e to a young woman who brought hl a complaint on the ground that her right of privacy had bd been It I I Ii I a novel point of law which boul e of oe general interest The Th story lit oZ the CI case mar be briefly brien told A Irm 1111 of at manufacturer to n th the ital used time picture of a presumably handsome young lady Idy Miss CI Abigail Robertson ID hi order to advertise their goods This was wa done don without the con conent consent sent ent ot of tb the girl Irl Then she b brought a ault asuit suit for damage claIming that her br right bl of privacy had bd been invaded Tb The judge found for Cor the n lie that In every err country countr is I as sacred anti nd added POor Or there bas ha In tb the public mind a falini that the law Iw w was too I liz In affording no remedy for tur tb the I ot of portrait ot of otI private persons Id aid this invasion of I privacy ies III been felt by the pub Ii He It mr may bt be asked kd hll the tion of tit these lithographic advertise affect thO In her right ot of It fa II is th the act of the d defendants In printing and Ind Unc her likeness In public plans a as an n ad ve Invites and brings 1 her name nam into or OF kIS IIII un unenviable Unenviable enviable notoriety and to a certain ex ax extent tent inflicts injury to her reputation anti feeling It I she desire a life ul of which she be h has a right to 10 enjoy InJo To 10 pe permit ev every person to print and tia till the likeness ot of Ih the plaintiff to 10 advert thaIr buSiness end ad yet t II say there la a a power la in the courts to 10 pro pru 1101 er would be a Lion at r tI the of and Are w we to If upon tb the courts ourt tot tor the protection of 01 on one goods 1104 and chattels and nd t Is thOre no 0 power to protect 1 the plaintiffs reputation or right ot of against Int circulating anI anti thO these lithographs In public places unless 1 it be b by Ih or other unlawful set ct Jt If her graphic likeness owing to II its beauty I le ot of great value as a trademark or an advertising medium It I Ii I a pro property which belong to 10 her end nd cannot be taken from h her without her consent h hiss right to say NY that without her conle these lithographic copies of her ber 11 not be cIrculated or by the defendants l u The t 1 be made a note not ot of b by bythe the artists rUt who In some someway way or aiRier Iter man manage to Invade the right to privacy of their numerous victims for be lb the purpose of pra predIng their pictUres in Ih Two points era made b by th b jucI judge On One Is II that tbt tb the right to privacy I Ii no on onh one has h a right rbt tel to publish tb the likeness of another Ide will 11 th the other I is that whatever value there I Is In a per por portrait trait a a property right bt to the owner TIM Tb j of 01 this will be admitted we e think Tite 11 Camera mr fiend and nd ear ar loon tOOD drawer II U the ot of yellow rellow hat has become a In III Inthe the Ibe land As AI lois a h he his hll work to and Ind publIc cheese cUtIC terl who nay feel lIttered flattered at t mi publiC attentIon nothing rn can be said 1114 aI h often bot both ugly uly and orti at drawl but It is II different when wilen persons who deel desire no l are la in cli U manner of 11 lilies A fw few damage mil suits u the courts In mOlt moat shale that nuisance from e too journalism |