3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 1/13

HarvardLawReviewVol.IV December15,1890 No.5

THERIGHTTOPRIVACY

"Itcouldbedoneonlyonprinciplesofprivatejustice,moralfitness,andpublicconvenience,which,whenappliedtoanewsubject,makecommonlawwithoutaprecedentmuchmorewhenreceivedandapprovedbyusage."

Willes,J.,inMillarv.Taylor,4Burr.2303,2312

THATtheindividualshallhavefullprotectioninpersonandinpropertyisaprincipleasoldasthecommonlawbutithasbeenfoundnecessaryfromtimetotimetodefineanewtheexactnatureandextentofsuchprotection.Political,social,andeconomicchangesentailtherecognitionofnewrights,andthecommonlaw,initseternalyouth,growstomeetthenewdemandsofsociety.Thus,inveryearlytimes,thelawgavearemedyonlyforphysicalinterferencewithlifeandproperty,fortrespassesvietarmis.Thenthe"righttolife"servedonlytoprotectthesubjectfrombatteryinitsvariousformslibertymeantfreedomfromactualrestraintandtherighttopropertysecuredtotheindividualhislandsandhiscattle.Later,therecamearecognitionofman'sspiritualnature,ofhisfeelingsandhisintellect.Graduallythescopeoftheselegalrightsbroadenedandnowtherighttolifehascometomeantherighttoenjoylife,therighttobeletalonetherighttolibertysecurestheexerciseofextensivecivilprivilegesandtheterm"property"hasgrowntocompriseeveryformofpossessionintangible,aswellastangible.

Thus,withtherecognitionofthelegalvalueofsensations,theprotectionagainstactualbodilyinjurywasextendedtoprohibitmereattemptstodosuchinjurythatis,theputtinganotherinfearofsuch

injury.Fromtheactionofbatterygrewthatofassault.1Muchlatertherecameaqualifiedprotectionoftheindividualagainstoffensivenoisesandodors,againstdustandsmoke,andexcessivevibration.The

lawofnuisancewasdeveloped.2Soregardforhumanemotionssoonextendedthescopeofpersonalimmunitybeyondthebodyoftheindividual.Hisreputation,thestandingamonghisfellowmen,was

considered,andthelawofslanderandlibelarose.3Man'sfamilyrelationsbecameapartofthelegal

conceptionofhislife,andthealienationofawife'saffectionswasheldremediable.4Occasionallythelawhalted,asinitsrefusaltorecognizetheintrusionbyseductionuponthehonorofthefamily.Butevenherethedemandsofsocietyweremet.Ameanfiction,theactionperquodservitiumamisit,wasresortedto,andbyallowingdamagesforinjurytotheparents'feelings,anadequateremedywas

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 2/13

ordinarilyafforded.5Similartotheexpansionoftherighttolifewasthegrowthofthelegalconceptionofproperty.Fromcorporealpropertyarosetheincorporealrightsissuingoutofitandthenthere

openedthewiderealmofintangibleproperty,intheproductsandprocessesofthemind,6asworksof

literatureandart,7goodwill,8tradesecrets,andtrademarks.9

Thisdevelopmentofthelawwasinevitable.Theintenseintellectualandemotionallife,andtheheighteningofsensationswhichcamewiththeadvanceofcivilization,madeitcleartomenthatonlyapartofthepain,pleasure,andprofitoflifelayinphysicalthings.Thoughts,emotions,andsensationsdemandedlegalrecognition,andthebeautifulcapacityforgrowthwhichcharacterizesthecommonlawenabledthejudgestoaffordtherequisiteprotection,withouttheinterpositionofthelegislature.

Recentinventionsandbusinessmethodscallattentiontothenextstepwhichmustbetakenfortheprotectionoftheperson,andforsecuringtotheindividualwhatJudgeCooleycallstheright"tobelet

alone"10Instantaneousphotographsandnewspaperenterprisehaveinvadedthesacredprecinctsofprivateanddomesticlifeandnumerousmechanicaldevicesthreatentomakegoodthepredictionthat"whatiswhisperedintheclosetshallbeproclaimedfromthehousetops."Foryearstherehasbeenafeelingthatthelawmustaffordsomeremedyfortheunauthorizedcirculationofportraitsofprivate

persons11andtheevilofinvasionofprivacybythenewspapers,longkeenlyfelt,hasbeenbutrecently

discussedbyanablewriter.12Theallegedfactsofasomewhatnotoriouscasebroughtbeforeaninferior

tribunalinNewYorkafewmonthsago,13directlyinvolvedtheconsiderationoftherightofcirculatingportraitsandthequestionwhetherourlawwillrecognizeandprotecttherighttoprivacyinthisandinotherrespectsmustsooncomebeforeoutcourtsforconsideration.

Ofthedesirabilityindeedofthenecessityofsomesuchprotection,therecan,itisbelieved,benodoubt.Thepressisoversteppingineverydirectiontheobviousboundsofproprietyandofdecency.Gossipisnolongertheresourceoftheidleandofthevicious,buthasbecomeatrade,whichispursuedwithindustryaswellaseffrontery.Tosatisfyaprurienttastethedetailsofsexualrelationsarespreadbroadcastinthecolumnsofthedailypapers.Tooccupytheindolent,columnuponcolumnisfilledwithidlegossip,whichcanonlybeprocuredbyintrusionuponthedomesticcircle.Theintensityandcomplexityoflife,attendantuponadvancingcivilization,haverenderednecessarysomeretreatfromtheworld,andman,undertherefininginfluenceofculture,hasbecomemoresensitivetopublicity,sothatsolitudeandprivacyhavebecomemoreessentialtotheindividualbutmodernenterpriseandinventionhave,throughinvasionsuponhisprivacy,subjectedhimtomentalpainanddistress,fargreaterthancouldbeinflictedbymerebodilyinjury.Noristheharmwroughtbysuchinvasionsconfinedtothesufferingofthosewhomaybethesubjectsofjournalisticorotherenterprise.Inthis,asinotherbranchesofcommerce,thesupplycreatesthedemand.Eachcropofunseemlygossip,thusharvested,becomestheseedofmore,and,indirectproportiontoitscirculation,resultsintheloweringofsocialstandardsandofmorality.Evengossipapparentlyharmless,whenwidelyandpersistentlycirculated,ispotentforevil.Itbothbelittlesandperverts.Itbelittlesbyinvertingtherelative

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 3/13

importanceofthings,thusdwarfingthethoughtsandaspirationsofapeople.Whenpersonalgossipattainsthedignityofprint,andcrowdsthespaceavailableformattersofrealinteresttothecommunity,whatwonderthattheignorantandthoughtlessmistakeitsrelativeimportance.Easyofcomprehension,appealingtothatweaksideofhumannaturewhichisneverwhollycastdownbythemisfortunesandfrailtiesofourneighbors,noonecanbesurprisedthatitusurpstheplaceofinterestinbrainscapableofotherthings.Trivialitydestroysatoncerobustnessofthoughtanddelicacyoffeeling.Noenthusiasmcanflourish,nogenerousimpulsecansurviveunderitsblightinginfluence.

Itisourpurposetoconsiderwhethertheexistinglawaffordsaprinciplewhichcanproperlybeinvokedtoprotecttheprivacyoftheindividualand,ifitdoes,whatthenatureandextentofsuchprotectionis.

Owingtothenatureoftheinstrumentsbywhichprivacyisinvaded,theinjuryinflictedbearsasuperficialresemblancetothewrongsdealtwithbythelawofslanderandoflibel,whilealegalremedyforsuchinjuryseemstoinvolvethetreatmentofmerewoundedfeelings,asasubstantivecauseofaction.Theprincipleonwhichthelawofdefamationrests,covers,however,aradicallydifferentclassofeffectsfromthoseforwhichattentionisnowasked.Itdealsonlywithdamagetoreputation,withtheinjurydonetotheindividualinhisexternalrelationstothecommunity,byloweringhimintheestimationofhisfellows.Thematterpublishedofhim,howeverwidelycirculated,andhoweverunsuitedtopublicity,must,inordertobeactionable,haveadirecttendencytoinjurehiminhisintercoursewithothers,andevenifinwritingorinprint,mustsubjecthimtothehatred,ridicule,orcontemptofhisfellowmen,theeffectofthepublicationuponhisestimateofhimselfanduponhisownfeelingsnorforminganessentialelementinthecauseofaction.Inshort,thewrongsandcorrelativerightsrecognizedbythelawofslanderandlibelareintheirnaturematerialratherthanspiritual.Thatbranchofthelawsimplyextendstheprotectionsurroundingphysicalpropertytocertainoftheconditionsnecessaryorhelpfultoworldlyprosperity.Ontheotherhand,ourlawrecognizesnoprincipleuponwhichcompensationcanbegrantedformereinjurytothefeelings.Howeverpainfulthementaleffectsuponanotherofanact,thoughpurelywantonorevenmalicious,yetiftheactitselfisotherwiselawful,thesufferinginflictedisdannumabsqueinjuria.Injuryoffeelingsmayindeedbetakenaccountofinascertainingtheamountofdamageswhenattendingwhatisrecognizedasalegal

injury14butoursystem,unliketheRomanlaw,doesnotaffordaremedyevenformentalsufferingwhichresultsfrommerecontumelyandinsult,butfromanintentionalandunwarrantedviolationofthe

"honor"oranother.15

Itisnothowevernecessary,inordertosustaintheviewthatthecommonlawrecognizesandupholdsaprincipleapplicabletocasesofinvasionofprivacy,toinvoketheanalogy,whichisbutsuperficial,toinjuriessustained,eitherbyanattackuponreputationorbywhatthecivilianscalledaviolationofhonorforthelegaldoctrinesrelatingtoinfractionsofwhatisordinarilytermedthecommonlawrighttointellectualandartisticpropertyare,itisbelieved,butinstancesandapplicationsofageneralrighttoprivacy,whichproperlyunderstoodaffordaremedyfortheevilsunderconsideration.

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 4/13

Thecommonlawsecurestoeachindividualtherightofdetermining,ordinarily,towhatextenthis

thoughts,sentiments,andemotionsshallbecommunicatedtoothers.16Underoursystemofgovernment,hecanneverbecompelledtoexpressthem(exceptwhenuponthewitnessstand)andevenifhehaschosentogivethemexpression,hegenerallyretainsthepowertofixthelimitsofthepublicitywhichshallbegiventhem.Theexistenceofthisrightdoesnotdependupontheparticular

methodofexpressionadopted.Itisimmaterialwhetheritbebyword17orbysigns,18inpainting,19by

sculpture,orinmusic.20Neitherdoestheexistenceoftherightdependuponthenatureorvalueofthe

thoughtoremotions,norupontheexcellenceofthemeansofexpression.21Thesameprotectionisaccordedtoacasualletteroranentryinadiaryandtothemostvaluablepoemoressay,toabotchordaubandtoamasterpiece.Ineverysuchcasetheindividualisentitledtodecidewhetherthatwhichis

hisshallbegiventothepublic.22Nootherhastherighttopublishhisproductionsinanyform,withouthisconsent.Thisrightiswhollyindependentofthematerialonwhich,thethought,sentiment,oremotionsisexpressed.Itmayexistindependentlyofanycorporealbeing,asinwordsspoken,asongsung,adramaacted.Orifexpressedonanymaterial,asinapoeminwriting,theauthormayhavepartedwiththepaper,withoutforfeitinganyproprietaryrightinthecompositionitself.Therightislostonlywhentheauthorhimselfcommunicateshisproductiontothepublic,inotherwords,publishes

it.23Itisentirelyindependentofthecopyrightlaws,andtheirextensionintothedomainofart.Theaimofthosestatutesistosecuretotheauthor,composer,orartisttheentireprofitsarisingfrompublicationbutthecommonlawprotectionenableshimtocontrolabsolutelytheactofpublication,andinthe

exerciseofhisowndiscretion,todecidewhetherthereshallbeanypublicationatall.24Thestatutoryrightisofnovalue,unlessthereisapublicationthecommonlawrightislostassoonasthereisapublication.

Whatisthenature,thebasis,ofthisrighttopreventthepublicationofmanuscriptsorworksofart?Itis

statedtobetheenforcementofarightofproperty25andnodifficultyarisesinacceptingthisview,solongaswehaveonlytodealwiththereproductionofliteraryandartisticcompositions.Theycertainlypossessmanyoftheattributesofordinarypropertytheyaretransferabletheyhaveavalueandpublicationorreproductionisausebywhichthatvalueisrealized.Butwherethevalueoftheproductionisfoundnotintherighttotaketheprofitsarisingfrompublication,butinthepeaceofmindorthereliefaffordedbytheabilitytopreventanypublicationatall,itisdifficulttoregardtherightasoneofproperty,inthecommonacceptationofthatterm.Amanrecordsinalettertohisson,orinhisdiary,thathedidnotdinewithhiswifeonacertainday.Nooneintowhosehandsthosepapersfallcouldpublishthemtotheworld,evenifpossessionofthedocumentshadbeenobtainedrightfullyandtheprohibitionwouldnotbeconfinedtothepublicationofacopyoftheletteritself,orofthediaryentrytherestraintextendsalsotoapublicationofthecontents.Whatisthethingwhichisprotected?Surely,nottheintellectualactofrecordingthefactthatthehusbanddidnotdinewithhiswife,butthatfactitself.Itisnottheintellectualproduct,butthedomesticoccurrence.Amanwritesadozenlettersto

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 5/13

differentpeople.Nopersonwouldbepermittedtopublishalistoftheletterswritten.Ifthelettersorthecontentsofthediarywereprotectedasliterarycompositions,thescopeoftheprotectionaffordedshouldbethesamesecuredtoapublishedwritingunderthecopyrightlaw.Butthecopyrightlawwouldnotpreventanenumerationoftheletters,orthepublicationofsomeofthefactscontainedtherein.Thecopyrightofaseriesofpaintingsoretchingswouldpreventareproductionofthepaintings

aspicturesbutitwouldnotpreventapublicationoflistorevenadescriptionofthem.26YetinthefamouscaseofPrinceAlbertv.Strange,thecourtheldthatthecommonlawruleprohibitednotmerelythereproductionoftheetchingswhichtheplaintiffandQueenVictoriahadmadefortheirownpleasure,butalso"thepublishing(atleastbyprintingorwriting),thoughnotbycopyorresemblance,adescriptionofthem,whethermoreorlesslimitedorsummary,whetherintheformofacatalogueor

otherwise."27Likewise,anunpublishedcollectionofnewspossessingnoelementofaliterarynatureis

protectedfromprivacy.28

Thatthisprotectioncannotrestupontherighttoliteraryorartisticpropertyinanyexactsense,appearsthemoreclearlywhenthesubjectmatterforwhichprotectionisinvokedisnotevenintheformofintellectualproperty,buthastheattributesofordinarytangibleproperty.Supposeamanhasacollectionofgemsorcuriositieswhichhekeepsprivate:itwouldhardlybecontendedthatanypersoncouldpublishacatalogueofthem,andyetthearticlesenumeratedarecertainlynotintellectualproperty

inthelegalsense,anymorethanacollectionofstovesorofchairs.29

Thebeliefthattheideaofpropertyinitsnarrowsensewasthebasisoftheprotectionofunpublishedmanuscriptsledanablecourttorefuse,inseveralcases,injunctionsagainstthepublicationofprivateletters,onthegroundthat"lettersnotpossessingtheattributesofliterarycompositionsarenotpropertyentitledtoprotection"andthatitwas"evidenttheplaintiffcouldnothaveconsideredthelettersasofanyvaluewhateverasliteraryproductions,foralettercannotbeconsideredofvaluetotheauthor

whichheneverwouldconsenttohavepublished."30Butthosedecisionshavenotbeenfollowed,31anditmaynotbeconsideredsettledthattheprotectionaffordedbythecommonlawtotheauthorofanywritingisentirelyindependentofitspecuniaryvalue,itsintrinsicmerits,orofanyintentiontopublishthesameand,ofcourse,also,whollyindependentofthematerial,ifany,uponwhich,orthemodeinwhich,thethoughtorsentimentwasexpressed.

Althoughthecourtshaveassertedthattheyrestedtheirdecisionsonthenarrowgroundsofprotectiontoproperty,yettherearerecognitionsofamoreliberaldoctrine.ThusinthecaseofPrinceAlbertv.Strange,alreadyreferredto,theopinionsofboththeViceChancellorandoftheLordChancellor,onappeal,showamoreorlessclearlydefinedperceptionofaprinciplebroaderthanthosewhichweremainlydiscussed,andonwhichtheybothplacetheirchiefreliance.ViceChancellorKnightBrucereferredtopublishingofamanthathehad"writtentoparticularpersonsoronparticularsubjects"asaninstanceofpossiblyinjuriousdisclosuresastoprivatematters,thatthecourtswouldinapropercasepreventyetitisdifficulttoperceivehow,insuchacase,anyrightofprivacy,inthenarrowsense,

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 6/13

wouldbedrawninquestion,orwhy,ifsuchapublicationwouldberestrainedwhenitthreatenedtoexposethevictimnotmerelytosarcasm,buttoruin,itshouldnotequallybeenjoined,ifitthreatenedtoembitterhislife.Todepriveamanofthepotentialprofitstoberealizedbypublishingacatalogueofhisgemscannotpersebeawrongtohim.Thepossibilityoffutureprofitsisnotarightofpropertywhichthelawordinarilyrecognizesitmust,therefore,beaninfractionofotherrightswhichconstitutesthewrongfulact,andthatinfractionisequallywrongful,whetheritsresultsaretoforestalltheprofitsthattheindividualhimselfmightsecurebygivingthematterapublicityobnoxioustohim,ortogainanadvantageattheexpenseofhismentalpainandsuffering.Ifthefictionofpropertyinanarrowsensemustbepreserved,itisstilltruethattheendaccomplishedbythegossipmongerisattainedbytheuseofthatwhichisanother's,thefactsrelatingtohisprivatelife,whichhehasseenfittokeepprivate.LordCottenhamstatedthataman"isthatwhichisexclusivelyhis,"andcitedwithapprovaltheopinionofLordEldon,asreportedinamanuscriptnoteofthecaseofWyattv.Wilson,in1820,respectinganengravingofGeorgetheThirdduringhisillness,totheeffectthat"ifoneofthelateking'sphysicianshadkeptadiaryofwhatheheardandsaw,thecourtwouldnot,intheking'slifetime,havepermittedhimtoprintandpublishit"andLordCottenhamdeclared,inrespecttotheactsofthedefendantsinthecasebeforehim,that"privacyistherightinvaded."Butifprivacyisoncerecognizedasarightentitledtolegalprotection,theinterpositionofthecourtscannotdependontheparticularnatureoftheinjuriesresulting.

Theseconsiderationsleadtotheconclusionthattheprotectionaffordedtothoughts,sentiments,andemotions,expressedthroughthemediumofwritingorofthearts,sofarasitconsistsinpreventingpublication,ismerelyaninstanceoftheenforcementofthemoregeneralrightoftheindividualtobeletalone.Itisliketherightnotbeassaultedorbeaten,therightnotbeimprisoned,therightnottobemaliciouslyprosecuted,therightnottobedefamed.Ineachoftheserights,asindeedinallotherrightsrecognizedbythelaw,thereinheresthequalityofbeingownedorpossessedand(asthatisthedistinguishingattributeofproperty)theremaysomeproprietyinspeakingofthoserightsasproperty.But,obviously,theybearlittleresemblancetowhatisordinarilycomprehendedunderthatterm.Theprinciplewhichprotectspersonalwritingsandallotherpersonalproductions,notagainsttheftandphysicalappropriation,butagainstpublicationinanyform,isinrealitynottheprincipleofprivate

property,butthatofaninviolatepersonality.32

Ifwearecorrectinthisconclusion,theexistinglawaffordsaprinciplefromwhichmaybeinvokedtoprotecttheprivacyoftheindividualfrominvasioneitherbythetooenterprisingpress,thephotographer,orthepossessorofanyothermoderndeviceforrewordingorreproducingscenesorsounds.Fortheprotectionaffordedisnotconfinedbytheauthoritiestothosecaseswhereanyparticularmediumorformofexpressionhasbeenadopted,nottoproductsoftheintellect.Thesameprotectionisaffordedtoemotionsandsensationsexpressedinamusicalcompositionorotherworkofartastoaliterarycompositionandwordsspoken,apantomimeacted,asonataperformed,isnolessentitledtoprotectionthanifeachhadbeenreducedtowriting.Thecircumstancethatathoughtor

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 7/13

emotionhasbeenrecordedinapermanentformrendersitsidentificationeasier,andhencemaybeimportantfromthepointofviewofevidence,butithasnosignificanceasamatterofsubstantiveright.If,then,thedecisionsindicateageneralrighttoprivacyforthoughts,emotions,andsensations,theseshouldreceivethesameprotection,whetherexpressedinwriting,orinconduct,inconversation,inattitudes,orinfacialexpression.

Itmaybeurgedthatadistinctionshouldbetakenbetweenthedeliberateexpressionofthoughtsandemotionsinliteraryorartisticcompositionsandthecasualandofteninvoluntaryexpressiongiventothemintheordinaryconductoflife.Inotherwords,itmaybecontendedthattheprotectionaffordedis

grantedtotheconsciousproductsoflabor,perhapsasanencouragementtoeffort.33Thiscontention,howeverplausible,has,infact,littletorecommendit.Iftheamountoflaborinvolvedbeadoptedasthetest,wemightwellfindthattheefforttoconductone'sselfproperlyinbusinessandindomesticrelationshadbeenfargreaterthanthatinvolvedinpaintingapictureorwritingabookonewouldfindthatitwasfareasiertoexpressloftysentimentsinadiarythanintheconductofanoblelife.Ifthetestofdeliberatenessoftheactbeadopted,muchcasualcorrespondencewhichisnowaccordedfullprotectionwouldbeexcludedfromthebeneficentoperationofexistingrules.Afterthedecisionsdenyingthedistinctionattemptedtobemadebetweenthoseliteraryproductionswhichitwasintendedtopublishandthosewhichitwasnot,allconsiderationsoftheamountoflaborinvolved,thedegreeofdeliberation,thevalueoftheproduct,andtheintentionofpublishingmustbeabandoned,andnobasisisdiscerneduponwhichtherighttorestrainpublicationandreproductionofsuchsocalledliteraryandartisticworkscanberested,excepttherighttoprivacy,asapartofthemoregeneralrighttotheimmunityoftheperson,therighttoone'spersonality.

Itshouldbestatedthat,insomeinstanceswhereprotectionhasbeenaffordedagainstwrongfulpublication,thejurisdictionhasbeenasserted,notonthegroundofproperty,oratleastnotwhollyonthatground,butuponthegroundofanallegedbreachofanimpliedcontractorofatrustorconfidence.

Thus,inAbernethyv.Hutchinson,3L.J.Ch.209(1825),wheretheplaintiff,adistinguishedsurgeon,soughttorestrainthepublicationinthe"Lancet"ofunpublishedlectureswhichhehaddeliveredasSt.Bartholomew'sHospitalinLondon,LordEldondoubtedwhethertherecouldbepropertyinlectureswhichhadnotbeenreducedtowriting,butgrantedtheinjunctiononthegroundofbreachofconfidence,holding"thatwhenpersonswereadmittedaspupilsorotherwise,toheartheselectures,althoughtheywereorallydelivered,andalthoughthepartiesmightgototheextent,iftheywereabletodoso,ofputtingdownthewholebymeansofshorthand,yettheycoulddothatonlyforthepurposesoftheirowninformation,andcouldnotpublish,forprofit,thatwhichtheyhadnotobtainedtherightofselling."

InPrinceAlbertv.Strange,IMcN.&G.25(1849),LordCottenham,onappeal,whilerecognizingarightofpropertyintheetchingswhichofitselfwouldjustifytheissuanceoftheinjunction,stated,afterdiscussingtheevidence,thathewasboundtoassumethatthepossessionoftheetchingbythe

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 8/13

defendanthad"itsfoundationinabreachoftrust,confidence,orcontract,"andthatuponsuchgroundalsotheplaintiff'stitletotheinjunctionwasfullysustained.

InTuckv.Priester,19Q.B.D.639(1887),theplaintiffswereownersofapicture,andemployedthedefendanttomakeacertainnumberofcopies.Hedidso,andmadealsoanumberofothercopiesforhimself,andofferedthemforsaleinEnglandatalowerprice.Subsequently,theplaintiffsregisteredtheircopyrightinthepicture,andthenbroughtsuitforaninjunctionanddamages.TheLordsJusticesdifferedastotheapplicationofthecopyrightactstothecase,butheldunanimouslythatindependentlyofthoseacts,theplaintiffswereentitledtoaninjunctionanddamagesforbreachofcontract.

InPollardv.PhotographicCo.,40Ch.Div.345(1888),aphotographerwhohadtakenalady'sphotographundertheordinarycircumstanceswasrestrainedfromexhibitingit,andalsofromsellingcopiesofit,onthegroundthatitwasabreachofanimpliedterminthecontract,andalsothatitwasabreachofconfidence.Mr.JusticeNorthinterjectedintheargumentoftheplaintiff'scounseltheinquiry:"Doyoudisputethatifthenegativelikenessweretakenonthesly,thepersonwhotookitmightexhibitcopies?"andcounselfortheplaintiffanswered:"Inthatcasetherewouldbenotrustorconsiderationtosupportacontract."Later,thedefendant'scounselarguedthat"apersonhasnopropertyinhisownfeaturesshortofdoingwhatislibellousorotherwiseillegal,thereisnorestrictiononthephotographer'susinghisnegative."Butthecourt,whileexpresslyfindingabreachofcontractandoftrustsufficienttojustifyitsinterposition,stillseemstohavefeltthenecessityofrestingthe

decisionalsouponarightofproperty,34inordertobringitwithinthelineofthosecaseswhichwere

relieduponasprecedents.35

Thisprocessofimplyingaterminacontract,orofimplyingatrust(particularlywhereacontractiswritten,andwheretheseisnoestablishedusageorcustom),isnothingmorenorlessthanajudicialdeclarationthatpublicmorality,privatejustice,andgeneralconveniencedemandtherecognitionofsucharule,andthatthepublicationundersimilarcircumstanceswouldbeconsideredanintolerableabuse.Solongasthesecircumstanceshappentopresentacontractuponwhichsuchatermcanbeengraftedbythejudicialmind,ortosupplyrelationsuponwhichatrustorconfidencecanbeerected,theremaybenoobjectiontoworkingoutthedesiredprotectionthoughthedoctrinesofcontractoroftrust.Butthecourtcanhardlystopthere.Thenarrowerdoctrinemayhavesatisfiedthedemandsofsocietyatatimewhentheabusetobeguardedagainstcouldrarelyhavearisenwithoutviolatingacontractoraspecialconfidencebutnowthatmoderndevicesaffordabundantopportunitiesfortheperpetrationofsuchwrongswithoutanyparticipationbytheinjuredparty,theprotectiongrantedbythelawmustbeplaceduponabroaderfoundation.While,forinstance,thestateofthephotographicartwassuchthatone'spicturecouldseldombetakenwithouthisconsciously"sitting"forthepurpose,thelawofcontractoroftrustmightaffordtheprudentmansufficientsafeguardsagainsttheimpropercirculationofhisportraitbutsincethelatestadvancesinphotographicarthaverendereditpossibletotakepicturessurreptitiously,thedoctrinesofcontractandoftrustareinadequatetosupporttherequired

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 9/13

protection,andthelawoftortmustberesortedto.Therightofpropertyinitswidestsense,includingallpossession,includingallrightsandprivileges,andhenceembracingtherighttoaninviolatepersonality,affordsalonethatbroadbasisuponwhichtheprotectionwhichtheindividualdemandscanberested.

Thus,thecourts,insearchingforsomeprincipleuponwhichthepublicationofprivateletterscouldbeenjoined,naturallycameupontheideasofabreachofconfidence,andofanimpliedcontractbutitrequiredlittleconsiderationtodiscernthatthisdoctrinecouldnotaffordalltheprotectionrequired,sinceitwouldnotsupportthecourtingrantingaremedyagainstastrangerandsothetheoryof

propertyinthecontentsofletterswasadopted.36Indeed,itisdifficulttoconceiveonwhattheoryofthelawthecasualrecipientofaletter,whoproceedstopublishit,isguiltyofabreachofcontract,expressorimplied,orofanybreachoftrust,intheordinaryacceptationofthatterm.Supposealetterhasbeenaddressedtohimwithouthissolicitation.Heopensit,andreads.Surely,hehasnotmadeanycontracthehasnotacceptedanytrust.Hecannot,byopeningandreadingtheletter,havecomeunderanyobligationsavewhatthelawdeclaresand,howeverexpressed,thatobligationissimplytoobservethelegalrightofthesender,whateveritmaybe,andwhetheritbecalledhisrightorpropertyinthe

contentsoftheletter,orhisrighttoprivacy.37

Asimilargropingfortheprincipleuponwhichawrongfulpublicationcanbeenjoinedisfoundinthelawoftradesecrets.There,injunctionshavegenerallybeengrantedonthetheoryofabreachof

contract,orofanabuseofconfidence.38Itwould,ofcourse,rarelyhappenthatanyonewouldbeinpossessionofasecretunlessconfidencehadbeenreposedinhim.Butcanitbesupposedthatthecourtwouldhesitatetograntreliefagainstonewhohadobtainedhisknowledgebyanordinarytrespass,forinstance,bywrongfullylookingintoabookinwhichthesecretwasrecorded,orbyeavesdropping?Indeed,inYovattv.Winyard,IJ.&W.394(1820),whereaninjunctionwasgrantedagainstmakinganyuseorofcommunicatingcertainrecipesforveterinarymedicine,itappearedthatthedefendantwhileintheplaintiff'semploy,hadsurreptitiouslygotaccesstohisbookofrecipes,andcopiedthem.LordEldon"grantedtheinjunction,uponthegroundoftherehavingbeenabreachoftrustandconfidence"butitwouldseemdifficulttodrawanysoundlegaldistinctionbetweensuchacaseandonewherea

merestrangerwrongfullyobtainedaccesstothebook.39

Wemustthereforeconcludethattherights,soprotected,whatevertheirexactnature,arenotrightsarisingfromcontractorfromspecialtrust,butarerightsasagainsttheworldand,asabovestated,theprinciplewhichhasbeenappliedtoprotecttheserightsisinrealitynottheprincipleofprivateproperty,unlessthatwordbeusedinanextendedandunusualsense.Theprinciplewhichprotectspersonalwritingsandanyotherproductionsoftheintellectofortheemotions,istherighttoprivacy,andthelawhasnonewprincipletoformulatewhenitextendsthisprotectiontothepersonalappearance,

sayings,acts,andtopersonalrelation,domesticorotherwise.40

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 10/13

Iftheinvasionofprivacyconstitutesalegalinjuria,theelementsfordemandingredressexist,sincealreadythevalueofmentalsuffering,causedbyanactwrongfulinitself,isrecognizedasabasisforcompensation.

Therightofonewhohasremainedaprivateindividual,topreventhispublicportraiture,presentsthesimplestcaseforsuchextensiontherighttoprotectone'sselffrompenportraiture,fromadiscussionbythepressofone'sprivateaffairs,wouldbeamoreimportantandfarreachingone.Ifcasualandunimportantstatementsinaletter,ifhandiwork,howeverinartisticandvalueless,ifpossessionsofallsortsareprotectednotonlyagainstreproduction,butalsoagainstdescriptionandenumeration,howmuchmoreshouldtheactsandsayingsofamaninhissocialanddomesticrelationsbeguardedfromruthlesspublicity.Ifyoumaynotreproduceawoman'sfacephotographicallywithoutherconsent,howmuchlessshouldbetoleratedthereproductionofherface,herform,andheractions,bygraphicdescriptionscoloredtosuitagrossanddepravedimagination.

Therighttoprivacy,limitedassuchrightmustnecessarilybe,hasalreadyfoundexpressioninthelaw

ofFrance.41

Itremainstoconsiderwhatarethelimitationsofthisrighttoprivacy,andwhatremediesmaybegrantedfortheenforcementoftheright.Todetermineinadvanceofexperiencetheexactlineatwhichthedignityandconvenienceoftheindividualmustyieldtothedemandsofthepublicwelfareorofprivatejusticewouldbeadifficulttaskbutthemoregeneralrulesarefurnishedbythelegalanalogiesalreadydevelopedinthelawofslanderandlibel,andinthelawofliteraryandartisticproperty.

1. Therighttoprivacydoesnotprohibitanypublicationofmatterwhichisofpublicorgeneralinterest.Indeterminingthescopeofthisrule,aidwouldbeaffordedbytheanalogy,inthelawoflibelandslander,ofcaseswhichdealwiththequalifiedprivilegeofcommentandcriticismonmatters

ofpublicandgeneralinterest.42Thereareofcoursedifficultiesinapplyingsucharulebuttheyareinherentinthesubjectmatter,andarecertainlynogreaterthanthosewhichexistinmanyotherbranchesofthelaw,forinstance,inthatlargeclassofcasesinwhichthereasonablenessorunreasonablenessofanactismadethetestofliability.Thedesignofthelawmustbetoprotectthosepersonswithwhoseaffairsthecommunityhasnolegitimateconcern,frombeingdraggedintoanundesirableandundesiredpublicityandtoprotectallpersons,whatsoevertheirpositionorstation,fromhavingmatterswhichtheymayproperlyprefertokeepprivate,madepublicagainsttheirwill.Itistheunwarrantedinvasionofindividualprivacywhichisreprehended,andtobe,sofaraspossible,prevented.Thedistinction,however,notedintheabovestatementisobviousandfundamental.Therearepersonswhomayreasonablyclaimasaright,protectionfromthenotorietyentailedbybeingmadethevictimsofjournalisticenterprise.Thereareotherswho,invaryingdegrees,haverenouncedtherighttolivetheirlivesscreenedfrompublicobservation.Matterswhichmenofthefirstclassmayjustlycontend,concern

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 11/13

themselvesalone,mayinthoseofthesecondbethesubjectoflegitimateinteresttotheirfellowcitizens.Peculiaritiesofmannerandperson,whichintheordinaryindividualshouldbefreefromcomment,mayacquireapublicimportance,iffoundinacandidateforpublicoffice.Somefurtherdiscriminationisnecessary,therefore,thantoclassfactsordeedsaspublicorprivateaccordingtoastandardtobeappliedtothefactordeedperse.Topublishofamodestandretiringindividualthathesuffersfromanimpedimentinhisspeechorthathecannotspellcorrectly,isanunwarranted,ifnotanunexampled,infringementofhisrights,whiletostateandcommentonthesamecharacteristicsfoundinawouldbecongressmancouldnotberegardedasbeyondthepaleofpropriety.Thegeneralobjectinviewistoprotecttheprivacyofprivatelife,andtowhateverdegreeandinwhateverconnectionaman'slifehasceasedtobeprivate,beforethepublicationunder

considerationhasbeenmade,tothatextenttheprotectionislikelytobewithdrawn.43Since,then,theproprietyofpublishingtheverysamefactsmaydependwhollyuponthepersonconcerningwhomtheyarepublished,nofixedformulacanbeusedtoprohibitobnoxiouspublications.Anyruleofliabilityadoptedmusthaveinitanelasticitywhichshalltakeaccountofthevaryingcircumstancesofeachcase,anecessitywhichunfortunatelyrenderssuchadoctrinenotonlymoredifficultofapplication,butalsotoacertainextentuncertaininitsoperationandeasilyrenderedabortive.Besides,itisonlythemoreflagrantbreachesofdecencyandproprietythatcouldinpracticebereached,anditisnotperhapsdesirableeventoattempttorepresseverythingwhichthenicesttasteandkeenestsenseoftherespectduetoprivatelifewouldcondemn.Ingeneral,then,themattersofwhichthepublicationshouldberepressedmaybedescribedasthosewhichconcerntheprivatelife,habits,acts,andrelationsofanindividual,andhavenolegitimateconnectionwithhisfitnessforapublicofficewhichheseeksorforwhichheissuggested,orforanypublicorquasipublicpositionwhichheseeksorforwhichheissuggested,andhavenolegitimaterelationtoorbearinguponanyactdonebyhiminapublicorquasipubliccapacity.Theforegoingisnotdesignedasawhollyaccurateorexhaustivedefinition,sincethatwhichmustultimatelyinavastnumberofcasesbecomeaquestionofindividualjudgmentandopinionisincapableofsuchdefinitionbutitisanattempttoindicatebroadlytheclassofmattersreferredto.Somethingsallmenalikeareentitledtokeepfrompopularcuriosity,whetherinpubliclifeornot,whileothersareonlyprivatebecausethepersonsconcernedhavenot

assumedapositionwhichmakestheirdoingslegitimatemattersofpublicinvestigation.44

2. Therighttoprivacydoesnotprohibitthecommunicationofanymatter,thoughinitsnatureprivate,whenthepublicationismadeundercircumstanceswhichwouldrenderitaprivilegedcommunicationaccordingtothelawofslanderandlibel.Underthisrule,therighttoprivacyisnotinvadedbyanypublicationmadeinacourtofjustice,inlegislativebodies,orthecommitteesofthosebodiesinmunicipalassemblies,orthecommitteesofsuchassemblies,orpracticallybyanycommunicationinanyotherpublicbody,

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 12/13

municipalorparochial,orinanybodyquasipublic,likethelargevoluntaryassociationsformedforalmosteverypurposeofbenevolence,business,orothergeneralinterestand(atleastinmanyjurisdictions)reportsofanysuchproceedingswouldinsomemeasurebeaccordedalike

privilege.45Norwouldtheruleprohibitanypublicationmadebyoneinthedischargeofsomepublicorprivateduty,whetherlegalormoral,orinconductofone'sownaffairs,inmatters

wherehisowninterestisconcerned.46

3. Thelawwouldprobablynotgrantanyredressfortheinvasionofprivacybyoralpublicationintheabsenceofspecialdamage.Thesamereasonsexistfordistinguishingbetweenoralandwrittenpublicationsofprivatematters,asisaffordedinthelawofdefamationbytherestrictedliabilityforslanderascompared

withtheliabilityforlibel.47Theinjuryresultingfromsuchoralcommunicationswouldordinarily

besotriflingthatthelawmightwell,intheinterestoffreespeech,disregarditaltogether.48

4. Therighttoprivacyceasesuponthepublicationofthefactsbytheindividual,orwithhisconsent.Thisisbutanotherapplicationoftherulewhichhasbecomefamiliarinthelawofliteraryandartisticproperty.Thecasestheredecidedestablishalsowhatshouldbedeemedapublication,theimportantprincipleinthisconnectionbeingthataprivatecommunicationofcirculationfora

restrictedpurposeisnotapublicationwithinthemeaningofthelaw.49

5. Thetruthofthematterpublisheddoesnotaffordadefence.Obviouslythisbranchofthelawshouldhavenoconcernwiththetruthorfalsehoodofthematterspublished.Itisnotforinjurytotheindividual'scharacterthatredressorpreventionissought,butforinjurytotherightofprivacy.Fortheformer,thelawofslanderandlibelprovidesperhapsasufficientsafeguard.Thelatterimpliestherightnotmerelytopreventinaccurateportrayalofprivatelife,buttopreventits

beingdepictedatall.50

6. Theabsenceof"malice"inthepublisherdoesnotaffordadefence.Personalillwillisnotaningredientoftheoffence,anymorethaninanordinarycaseoftrespasstopersonortoproperty.Suchmaliceisnevernecessarytobeshowninanactionforlibelorslanderatcommonlaw,exceptinrebuttalofsomedefence,e.g.,thattheoccasionrenderedthecommunicationprivileged,or,underthestatutesinthisStateandelsewhere,thatthestatementcomplainedofwastrue.Theinvasionoftheprivacythatistobeprotectedisequallycompleteandequallyinjurious,whetherthemotivesbywhichthespeakerorwriterwasactuatedaretakenbythemselves,culpableornotjustasthedamagetocharacter,andtosomeextentthetendencytoprovokeabreachofthepeace,isequallytheresultofdefamationwithoutregardtomotivesleadingtoitspublication.Viewedasawrongtotheindividual,thisruleisthesamepervadingthewholelawoftorts,bywhichoneisheldresponsibleforhisintentionalacts,eventhoughtthey

3/17/2015 RighttoPrivacy

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm 13/13

carecommittedwithnosinisterintentandviewedasawrongtosociety,itisthesameprincipleadoptedinalargecategoryofstatutoryoffences.

Theremediesforaninvasionoftherightofprivacyarealsosuggestedbythoseadministeredinthelawofdefamation,andinthelawofliteraryandartisticproperty,namely:

1. Anactionoftortfordamagesinallcases.51Evenintheabsenceofspecialdamages,substantialcompensationcouldbeallowedforinjurytofeelingsasintheactionofslanderandlibel.

2. Aninjunction,inperhapsaverylimitedclassofcases.52

Itwoulddoubtlessbedesirablethattheprivacyoftheindividualshouldreceivetheaddedprotectionof

thecriminallaw,butforthis,legislationwouldberequired.53Perhapsitwouldbedeemedpropertobringthecriminalliabilityforsuchpublicationwithinnarrowerlimitsbutthatthecommunityhasaninterestinpreventingsuchinvasionsofprivacy,sufficientlystrongtojustifytheintroductionofsucharemedy,cannotbedoubted.Still,theprotectionofsocietymustcomemainlythrougharecognitionoftherightsoftheindividual.Eachmanisresponsibleforhisownactsandomissionsonly.Ifhecondoneswhathereprobates,withaweaponathandequaltohisdefence,heisresponsiblefortheresults.Ifheresists,publicopinionwillrallytohissupport.Hashethensuchaweapon?Itisbelievedthatthecommonlawprovideshimwithone,forgedintheslowfireofthecenturies,andtodayfitlytemperedtohishand.Thecommonlawhasalwaysrecognizedaman'shouseashiscastle,impregnable,often,eventohisownofficersengagedintheexecutionofitscommand.Shallthecourtsthusclosethefrontentrancetoconstitutedauthority,andopenwidethebackdoortoidleorprurientcuriosity?

SamuelD.Warren,LouisD.Brandeis.

BOSTON,December,1890.

[OriginallypublishedintheHarvardLawReview,V.IV,No.5,December1890.]