The Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory
changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between
rights of an earlier and later time.
In a statute relating to the use of photographs, the fact that
it applies only to those taken after the enactment does not render
it unconstitutional as denying the equal protection of the law
because it does not relate to those taken prior to such
enactment.
Where property is not brought into existence until after a
statute is passed, the owner is not deprived of his property
without due process of law on account of limitations thereon
imposed by such statute.
The Court of Appeals of that state having construed the statute
of New York of 1903 limiting the use of photographs of persons to
photographs taken after the statute went into effect, the statute
is not unconstitutional as denying one owning photographs taken
thereafter of his property without due process of law, or as
denying equal protection of the law.
Judgment entered on authority of 193 N.Y. 223 affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 220 U. S. 504
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action brought by the defendant in error for
Page 220 U. S. 505
using her photographed portrait for advertising purposes without
her written consent first obtained. The facts were found against
the defendant (the plaintiff in error), an injunction was issued,
and damages were awarded; 120 App.Div. 467; the judgment was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 193 N.Y. 223, and thereupon final
judgment was entered in the Supreme Court. The suit was based upon
Chapter 132 of the New York Statutes of 1903, which makes such use
of the name, portrait, or picture of any living person a
misdemeanor, and gives this action. The case comes here on the
single question of the constitutionality of the act. It is argued
that as, before the statute, a person could not prevent the use of
her portrait by one who took and owned it,
Roberson v.
Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N.Y. 538, to deny that use now
is to deprive the owner of his property without due process of
law.
The Court of Appeals held that the statute applied only to
photographs taken after it went into effect, as was the photograph
of the plaintiff that the defendant used. The property was brought
into existence under a law that limited the uses to be made of it,
and if otherwise there could have been any question, in such a
case, there is none. Some comment was made in argument on the
distinction between photographs taken before and after the date in
1903 as inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. But the
Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes
to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of
an earlier and later time.
Judgment affirmed.