No. The company did not break the law. The judges on the winning side said that even though using her picture without asking was rude, there was no specific law about a 'right to privacy.' They worried that if they created this new right, people could start suing for all sorts of things, like someone gossiping about them. They decided it was the legislature's job (the people who write the laws), not the court's, to create a new law for this kind of problem.

Yes. This was wrong, and the court should have stopped it. The judge on the losing side argued that everyone has a basic right to be left alone. He said that with new inventions like cameras, new types of harm can happen, and the law needs to keep up. He believed it was shocking and unfair that a company could use a woman's face to make money and cause her so much pain without any consequences.

No, a person doesn't have a known legal right to privacy that lets them stop others from using their photo for ads. The court agrees Roberson was upset by her photo being used. But there's no past case or law giving people a right to sue for invasion of privacy like this. Lawmakers could make a new law, but judges can't make up a new legal right based on hurt feelings. Roberson's complaint doesn't count as a reason to sue under current laws. Trying to add a privacy right now would mess up legal rules people are used to following.

Roberson should have a legal right to privacy so she can stop the company from using her photo for ads without permission. The company invaded her privacy by printing and showing 25,000 copies of her photo to help their business, even though she never said yes. This embarrassed her and made her sick. The court should protect people's privacy for things like this, the same way it protects them from having private writings and art shared without consent. A person should control their own image. It's wrong to let the company use Roberson's face on ads when she doesn't want that, and not give her any way to stop it. The court should use its power to put a stop to this major violation of Roberson's privacy.

No. The common law of New York does not recognize a right of privacy upon which a cause of action can be founded. The court found no precedent for such a right in existing case law or legal treatises, and it reasoned that judicially creating such a right would open the floodgates to a vast and unmanageable field of litigation concerning hurt feelings. The court analyzed English and American precedents, concluding they were all decided on established grounds of property rights, breach of contract, or breach of confidence, not on a standalone right to privacy. The majority held that creating such a novel right is a power that belongs to the legislature, which can draw arbitrary lines and distinctions, rather than the judiciary, which is bound by precedent. While acknowledging the plaintiff might have had a claim for libel if the advertisement exposed her to ridicule, the complaint lacked such an allegation.

Yes. A right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, exists as a personal right that a court of equity should protect from invasion. The dissent argued that the absence of a precise precedent should not prevent a court from remedying a clear wrong, especially one arising from new social conditions and technologies like photography. This right is a natural and fundamental part of personal security, analogous to the protection afforded to intellectual property like private letters or lectures. The defendants' unauthorized use of the plaintiff's likeness for their own commercial gain was an unjustifiable act calculated to wound her feelings and subject her to ridicule. Equity, the dissent contended, should be flexible enough to protect an individual from such mortifying notoriety and irreparable harm.

No, an individual does not have an established legal right to privacy that allows them to prevent the unauthorized commercial use of their likeness. The court acknowledges Roberson may have suffered from the unauthorized use of her photograph. However, there is no precedent or legal principle supporting a cause of action for invasion of privacy. Such a right could be established by the legislature, but it is not within the court's authority to create new legal principles based on individual feelings. Roberson's complaint does not state a cause of action for which relief can be granted, because the so-called 'right of privacy' has not found an abiding place in our jurisprudence. Incorporating such a right now would do violence to settled principles of law.

The plaintiff Roberson should have a legal right to privacy that allows her to prevent the unauthorized commercial use of her likeness. The defendants invaded Roberson's privacy by printing and publicly displaying 25,000 copies of her portrait for their commercial gain without her consent, causing her humiliation and illness. Equity should protect an individual's right to privacy, just as it protects against the unauthorized publication of private writings and art. A person should have an exclusive property right in their own likeness. It is inconceivable that the defendants can use Roberson's portrait for advertising without her consent, and that she must submit to the indignity and mortifying notoriety without remedy. The court should exercise its equitable power to enjoin this substantial violation of Roberson's privacy.

Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot