Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance
122 Ga. 190 (1904)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual possesses a legal right of privacy, and the unauthorized publication of their likeness for commercial advertising purposes constitutes a tortious invasion of that right.
Facts:
- Paolo Pavesich was an artist living in Atlanta.
- New England Mutual Life Insurance Co., through its agent J.Q. Adams, procured a photograph of Pavesich.
- Without Pavesich's consent or knowledge, the insurance company used his likeness in a newspaper advertisement.
- The advertisement featured Pavesich's picture next to one of an ill-dressed, sickly-looking man, creating a 'before and after' comparison.
- Under Pavesich's picture was a false testimonial, attributed to him, claiming he had purchased life insurance from the company and was satisfied with it.
- In reality, Pavesich had never purchased an insurance policy from the defendant company, making the testimonial a complete fabrication.
Procedural Posture:
- Paolo Pavesich filed a petition against New England Mutual Life Insurance Co., its agent, and a photographer in the City Court of Atlanta.
- The petition contained counts for both libel and invasion of the right of privacy.
- The defendants filed a general demurrer, arguing the petition failed to state a cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed Pavesich's petition.
- Pavesich appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the unauthorized use of an individual's picture in a newspaper advertisement, accompanied by a false testimonial, constitute an actionable invasion of the individual's right of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Cobb, J.
Yes. The unauthorized use of an individual's picture for advertising is an actionable invasion of the right of privacy. The court holds that a right of privacy, derived from natural law and protected by constitutional guarantees of liberty, exists and is legally enforceable. This right protects an individual from the unauthorized appropriation of their likeness for another's commercial benefit. The court explicitly rejects the reasoning of the New York Court of Appeals in Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., which had denied the existence of such a right. It reasons that the right to privacy is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty, akin to the 'right to be let alone.' While this right must be balanced against the freedom of speech and the press, its use in purely commercial advertising does not fall under the protected expression of 'sentiments' and is therefore an abuse of liberty and a violation of the individual's right. The court also found the petition stated a claim for libel, as the false testimonial would make Pavesich appear to be a liar to those who knew he had no such insurance policy, thus exposing him to contempt.
Analysis:
This is a landmark decision, as it was one of the first cases by a court of last resort in the United States to explicitly recognize a common law right to privacy as an independent tort. By directly rejecting the contrary holding in New York's influential Roberson case, the Georgia Supreme Court established a powerful precedent that significantly shaped the development of privacy law nationwide. The ruling provided the foundation for the tort of appropriation of name or likeness, which is now widely recognized. This case is crucial for understanding the judicial creation of common law rights in response to new societal and technological challenges, such as photography and mass advertising.
