Roberson v. Rochester Folding-Box Co. - 32 Misc. 344, 65 N.Y.S. 1109 (Sup. Ct. 1900)

Rule:

The right of one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity to be let alone. The law also gives to every person a right of security in his reputation. The rule that an individual shall have full protection in person and property is as old as the common law. Additionally, a private individual has a right to be protected in the representation of his portrait in any form, this is a property as well as a personal right, it belongs to the same class of rights which forbids the reproduction of a private manuscript or painting, or the publication of private letters, or of oral lectures delivered by a teacher to his class, or the revelation of the contents of a merchant's books by a clerk. A private individual should be protected against the publication of any portraiture of himself, but where an individual becomes a public character, the case is different. A statesman, author, artist, or inventor, who asks for and desires public recognition, may be said to have surrendered this right to the public.

Facts:

Plaintiff individual, Abigail M. Roberson, an Infant, by her Guardian ad Litem, Margaret E. Bell, filed an action against defendant corporations, The Rochester Folding Box Company and The Franklin Mills Company. The complaint alleged that without her knowledge or consent, defendants made, printed, sold and circulated lithographic likenesses of the plaintiff for the purpose of profit and gain. Defendants placed plaintiff’s likeness on its flour packages, and these were posted and displayed in stores, warehouses, saloons, and other public places. Plaintiff further alleged that because of it, she was made sick and suffered a severe nervous shock and that her good name and reputation had been attacked. Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to have constituted a cause of action.

Issue:

Did defendants have the right to print and circulate lithograph copies of plaintiff’s likeness for profit purposes without her consent?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court overruled defendant’s demurrer and held that the plaintiff was not a public figure. The court held that every personal interest that the plaintiff possessed was regarded as private. The court determined that the sale and circulation of the lithographic copies of the plaintiff’s likeness, without her consent, was an invasion of her private rights. And because defendant violated plaintiff’s private rights, plaintiff was entitled to have maintained an action to recover damages for the violation. The court thus held that plaintiff was entitled to the relief demanded in her complaint.