112 Cal. App. 285, 297 P. 91 (1931)
Gabrielle Darley, later known as Gabrielle Darley Melvin after her marriage to Bernard Melvin, had been a prostitute.1 She was tried for murder several years before 1918, resulting in her acquittal.2 During 1918, after her acquittal, she abandoned her life of shame and became entirely rehabilitated.3
In 1919 she married Bernard Melvin and commenced the duties of caring for their home.4 Thereafter at all times she lived an exemplary, virtuous, honorable and righteous life.5 She assumed a place in respectable society and made many friends who were not aware of the incidents of her earlier life.6
In July 1925 the defendants, without her permission, knowledge or consent, made, photographed, produced and released a moving picture film entitled "The Red Kimono" based upon the true story of the past life of appellant using her maiden name Gabrielle Darley.7 The film was thereafter exhibited in moving picture houses in California, Arizona and throughout many other states.8 Defendants featured and advertised that the plot of the film was the true story of the unsavory incidents in the life of appellant with Gabrielle Darley as the true name of the principal character who was the appellant.9
By the production and showing of the picture, friends of appellant learned for the first time of the unsavory incidents of her early life.10 This caused them to scorn and abandon her and exposed her to obloquy, contempt and ridicule.11 This caused her grievous mental and physical suffering to her damage in the sum of fifty thousand dollars.12
The appellant filed her complaint in the trial court seeking judgment against defendants for money.13 The complaint contains four causes of action separately stated.14 The first is based upon the violation of the right of privacy.15 The other three are based upon a supposed property right in incidents of her life and her maiden name.16 Respondents filed general and special demurrers to each count of the complaint which were sustained.17 Appellant refused to amend and appealed from the judgment entered after the right to amend had expired to the District Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District.18
Whether the appellant's complaint states a cause of action based on the violation of the right of privacy?19
The right of privacy, though unknown to the ancient common law, is recognized in California as an incident of the person protected by the constitutional guarantee to pursue and obtain safety and happiness under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.20 This right encompasses freedom from unwarranted attacks upon one's liberty, property, and reputation, and it can be violated by the publication for gain of a person's true name in connection with incidents from her past life after she has rehabilitated herself and become a respected member of society.21
Yes. The defendants used the appellant's true name in connection with incidents from her past life in the plot and advertisements of the film.22 This use occurred after she had reformed and become a respected member of society eight years earlier.23 The use was unnecessary and constituted a wilful and wanton disregard of her right to happiness guaranteed by the state constitution.24 The publication was therefore actionable as an invasion of her right of privacy.25
The first cause of action states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.26
Whether the appellant's complaint states causes of action based on a supposed property right in incidents of her life and her maiden name?27
No. The established facts show that the second, third, and fourth causes of action were based upon a supposed property right in the incidents of the appellant's life and her maiden name.31 No authorities support the existence of such a property right in the story of one's life.32 Therefore the demurrers to those counts were properly sustained by the trial court.33
The general demurrer was properly sustained to the second, third and fourth causes of action.34