July 7th, 2024

1880s photography triggered a right-to-privacy movement that holds lessons today

A widow's portrait was misused for whiskey ads in 1904, reflecting early photography's lack of image control. George Eastman's Kodak camera popularized photography, raising privacy concerns and leading to legal battles for image rights.

Read original articleLink Icon
1880s photography triggered a right-to-privacy movement that holds lessons today

In 1904, a widow named Elizabeth Peck had her portrait taken and unknowingly became the face of false advertising for Duffy’s Pure Malt Whiskey. This incident highlights the lack of control individuals had over their images during the early days of photography. The democratization of photography by George Eastman's Kodak camera in 1888 led to a mass exposure phenomenon, with nearly a third of the U.S. population taking up photography within 20 years. The rise of photography also brought about privacy concerns and unethical practices, such as unauthorized use of individuals' likenesses in advertising. The legal response to these issues was initially limited, with libel lawsuits being the main recourse for overexposed individuals. However, public outrage eventually led to the recognition of a narrow "right to privacy" in various state courts, prohibiting the unauthorized use of someone's likeness in advertising or trade. The debate over the right to be free from exposure and its consequences continues to be relevant in today's image-saturated age, echoing the challenges faced during the troubled development of mass exposure in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Link Icon 1 comments
By @autoexec - 5 months
> Not long after asserting that no right to privacy exists in common law, and while campaigning to be the Democratic nominee for president, Parker told the Associated Press: “I reserve the right to put my hand in my pockets and assume comfortable attitudes without being everlastingly afraid that I shall be snapped by some fellow with a camera.” Roberson publicly took him to task over his hypocrisy, writing “I take this opportunity to remind you that you have no such right.” She was correct then, and she still would be today. The question of whether anyone has the right to be free from exposure and its many humiliations lingers, intensified but unresolved.

It's pretty much resolved. There's no right to privacy in public. I'm always surprised at the number of people who think it's illegal to photograph or film them without their permission while in pubic spaces. There are youtubers who make their living capturing people on camera who freak out and call the police on the photographer, and it usually ends with the police explaining that people have every right to take photos/video of what's going on around them in public. When it doesn't go that way and the police interfere with the photographer the youtuber can get some large payouts from the taxpayers for the violation of his/her rights.

Personally, I'm glad the right to photograph and record in public exists. It's given us some pretty cool insight into the life of people who died long before us (for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRnGwbrnOo) and it allows citizen journalists to capture abuses of power, mistreatment by public officials, violations of our rights by police, etc.

I feel for people who don't like the idea that they can be recorded everywhere they go, but the truth is, all of us are already recorded everywhere we go. It doesn't make much sense to stand directly under a CCTV/surveillance camera and yell at person recording on a cell phone, but it happens all the time. If only people applied that level of outrage to the rest of the constant surveillance around us we might have better protections against the worst invasions of our privacy.