Corliss v. E.W. Walker Co.

Citation64 F. 280
Decision Date19 November 1894
Docket Number3,152.
PartiesCORLISS et al. v. E. W. WALKER CO. et al.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts

Henry Marsh, Jr., and James M. Ripley, for complainants.

M. L Sanborn and Henry E. Fales, for defendants.

COLT Circuit Judge.

The defendants move to dissolve the injunction heretofore granted in this case. As the case was first presented, it appeared that the print of George H. Corliss to be inserted in a biographical sketch about to be published by the defendants was taken from a photograph obtained from Mrs. Corliss by the defendants upon certain conditions, which they had failed to comply with, and the court granted an injunction upon the ground that the proposed use by the defendants would be a breach of contract and a violation of confidence. 57 F. 434. Upon a full presentation of the facts at the present hearing it now appears that the defendants obtained two photographs of Mr. Corliss, and that the one received from Mrs. Corliss was returned to her, while the other, from which the print was actually taken, was purchased for the defendants at a store in Providence several months before any contract was entered into between the parties, or any correspondence had in relation to the subject. It must be confessed that the case now assumes a different aspect. If we eliminate the element of contract or trust, the question resolves itself into the broad proposition of how far an individual, in his lifetime, or his heirs at law after his death, have the right to control the reproduction of his picture or photograph. The photograph obtained by the defendants was a copy of an original taken by Mr. Heald, of Providence, for Mr. Corliss in September, 1885. Mr. Corliss engaged Mr. Heald, in the ordinary way, to take his photograph, and paid for the pictures which he ordered. The contention of the plaintiffs is that Mr. Heald had no right to make prints from the original negative, other than those which Mr. Corliss ordered, and that neither Mr. Heald nor any one else had the right to reproduce copies from any of the photographs ordered by Mr. Corliss, and that to do so would be a breach of contract or a violation of confidence, for which relief can be had in a court of equity. In support of this position, the plaintiffs say that Mr. Corliss never authorized Mr. Heald to make any prints from the negative, except those he ordered and that after his death, in February, 1888, Mrs. Corliss obtained the original negative, and forbade Mr. Heald from exhibiting in his studio any pictures of Mr. Corliss.

When a person engages a photographer to take his picture, agreeing to pay so much for the copies which he desires, the transaction assumes the form of a contract; and it is a breach of contract, as well as a violation of confidence, for the photographer to make additional copies from the negative. The negative may belong to the photographer, but the right to print additional copies is the right of the customer. Pollard v. Photographic Co., 40 Ch.Div. 345; Tuck v. Priester, 19 Q.B.Div. 629. Independently of the question of contract, I believe the law to be that a private individual has a right to be protected in the representation of his portrait in any form; that this is a property as well as a personal right; and that it belongs to the same class of rights which forbids the reproduction of a private manuscript or painting, or the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 16-16486 & 16-16783
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 28, 2020
    ...to serve as a historical analog. I do the same and note that there is good cause for that assumption. See Corliss v. E.W. Walker Co. , 64 F. 280, 281–83 (C.C.D. Mass. 1894) (discussing the breach-of-confidence tort).4 The majority is thus wrong to say that Muransky alleged a "pure statutory......
  • Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 28, 2020
    ...to serve as a historical analog. I do the same and note that there is good cause for that assumption. See Corliss v. E.W. Walker Co., 64 F. 280, 281-83 (C.C.D. Mass. 1894) (discussing the breach-of-confidence tort). 9. The majority is thus wrong to say that Muransky alleged a "pure statutor......
  • Jensen v. Sawyers
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • November 15, 2005
    ...Mineral Springs Co., 18 N.Y.S. 240 (Sup.Ct.1891) (use of physician's name in advertising medicine, without consent); Corliss v. E.W. Walker Co., 64 F. 280 (C.C.D.Mass.1894) (publishing biography and portrait of George H. Corliss, deceased inventor, not an invasion of privacy because he was ......
  • Com. v. Hayes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 1, 1980
    ...240 (1891); Marks v. Jaffa, 6 Misc. 290, 26 N.Y.S. 908 (1893); Schuyler v. Curtis, 147 N.Y. 434, 42 N.E. 22 (1895); Corliss v. E. W. Walker Co., D.Mass., 64 F. 280 (1894); Atkinson v. John E. Doherty & Co., 121 Mich. 372, 80 N.W. 285 (1899).12 The Restatement of Torts provides:§ 867. Interf......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
    • United States
    • October 1, 2020
    ...(114.) ROTHMAN, supra note 1, at 11-29; The Right of Privacy, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 23,1902, at 8. (115.) Corliss v. E.W. Walker Co., 64 F. 280, 281 (D. Mass. 1894) (emphasis added). Although the court recognized such a right, at least as to private individuals, it rejected the plaintiff's claim......
  • Freedom of speech and information privacy: the troubling implications of a right to stop people from speaking about you.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 52 No. 5, May 2000
    • May 1, 2000
    ...but cf. Bloustein, infra note 179, at 66-70 (arguing that the former child prodigy should have won). (55.) Corliss v. E.W. Walker Co., 64 F. 280, 282 (C.C.D. Mass. 1894) ("[A] private individual has a right to be protected in the representation of his portrait in any form; ... this is a pro......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT