171 N.Y. 538, [64 N.E. 442]
The plaintiff brought suit against the Franklin Mills Company, a milling business engaged in the manufacture and sale of flour, and the Rochester Folding Box Company.1 Before the action commenced, the defendants obtained, made, printed, sold, and circulated approximately 25,000 lithographic prints, photographs, and likenesses of the plaintiff without her knowledge or consent.2
The prints featured the plaintiff's portrait with the words “Flour of the Family” printed above it in large letters and “Franklin Mills Flour” below it in large capital letters, along with “Rochester Folding Box Co., Rochester, N.Y.” in the lower right-hand corner, accompanied by other advertisements for Franklin Mills flour.3 These 25,000 likenesses were conspicuously posted and displayed in stores, warehouses, saloons, and other public places throughout the United States and other countries, particularly near the plaintiff's residence.4
Friends and acquaintances of the plaintiff recognized her in the advertisements, leading to her being subjected to scoffs and jeers that humiliated her, attacked her good name, and caused her great distress and suffering in both body and mind; she became ill, suffered a severe nervous shock, was confined to her bed, and required the services of a physician.5 The defendants continued these activities, and the plaintiff claimed damages of $15,000 as a result.6
The complaint sought an injunction preventing the defendants from making, printing, publishing, circulating, or using any likenesses of the plaintiff, along with damages.7 The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.8 The Appellate Division certified two questions of law to the Court of Appeals for review.9
Whether the complaint herein states a cause of action at law against the defendants or either of them?10
A complaint states a cause of action at law only when it alleges facts showing the violation of a recognized legal right, such as a property interest, contractual obligation, or reputational harm amounting to libel, for which damages are recoverable under established common-law principles.11
No. The established facts demonstrate only the unauthorized commercial circulation of the plaintiff's likeness, which produced humiliation and physical illness but allege neither libel nor any invasion of property or contract rights.12 Without a recognized legal right grounded in precedent, the complaint supplies no basis for damages at law.13
The complaint does not state a cause of action at law against the defendants or either of them.14
Whether the complaint herein states a cause of action in equity against the defendants or either of them?15
A complaint states a cause of action in equity when it shows a threatened invasion of an established legal right, such as a property or contractual interest, for which there is no adequate remedy at law and injunctive relief is warranted under settled equitable principles.16
No. Although the established facts show that the defendants' continued circulation of the plaintiff's likeness for commercial gain caused her substantial distress, those facts reveal no property right, breach of trust, or implied contract of the kind protected in earlier equity cases.17 Equity therefore lacks authority to grant an injunction because the asserted right of privacy has not been incorporated into the body of established law.18 The absence of precedent for protecting feelings alone against commercial exploitation confirms that the complaint fails to state a cause of action in equity.19
The complaint does not state a cause of action in equity against the defendants or either of them.20
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Bartlett And Haight, Jj.
Gray, J., dissenting, concluded that the complaint does state a cause of action in equity.21 He reasoned that the right of privacy is a personal right entitled to equitable protection as the complement of immunity of person, analogous to the property right in unpublished writings or lectures.22 Applying the rule to the established facts, the defendants' unauthorized commercial use of the plaintiff's likeness for profit constituted an invasion of her right to be let alone that equity could restrain by injunction, even without proof of pecuniary damages, because modern conditions created by instantaneous photography demand extension of common-law principles to prevent irreparable injury.23