布蘭代斯論隱私權(quán)

第頁4Harv.L.Rev.193HarvardLawReviewDecember15,1890*193THERIGHTTOPRIVACYSamuelD.WarrenLouisD.BrandeisBoston,December,1890Copyright?1890HarvardLawReviewAssociation;SamuelD.Warren,LouisD.Brandeis“Itcouldbedoneonlyonprinciplesofprivatejustice,moralfitness,andpublicconvenience,which,whenappliedtoanewsubject,makecommonlawwithoutaprecedent;muchmorewhenreceivedandapprovedbyusage.”WILLES,J.,inMillarv.Taylor,4Burr.2303,2312.THATtheindividualshallhavefullprotectioninpersonandinpropertyisaprincipleasoldasthecommonlaw;butithasbeenfoundnecessaryfromtimetotimetodefineanewtheexactnatureandextentofsuchprotection.Political,social,andeconomicchangesentail使蒙受therecognition承認(rèn)ofnewrights,andthecommonlaw,initseternal永恒youth,growstomeetthedemandsofsociety.Thus,inveryearlytimes,thelawgavearemedyonlyforphysicalinterferencewithlifeandproperty,fortrespassesvietarmis通過武力.Thenthe“righttolife”servedonlytoprotectthesubjectfrombatteryinitsvariousforms;libertymeantfreedomfromactualrestraint;andtherighttopropertysecuredtotheindividualhislandsandhiscattle.Later,therecamearecognitionofman'sspiritualnature,ofhisfeelingsandhisintellect.Graduallythescopeoftheselegalrightsbroadened;andnowtherighttolifehascometomeantherighttoenjoylife,—therighttobeletalone;therighttolibertysecurestheexerciseofextensivecivilprivileges;andtheterm“property”hasgrowntocompriseeveryformofpossession—intangible,aswellastangible.使蒙受承認(rèn)永恒通過武力人身傷害――噪音及氣味――精神價(jià)值的法律確認(rèn)――名譽(yù)的法律確認(rèn)Thus,withtherecognitionofthelegalvalueofsensations感覺，直覺,theprotectionagainstactualbodilyinjurywasextendedtoprohibitmereattemptstodosuchinjury;thatis,theputtinganotherin*194fearofsuchinjury.Fromtheactionofbatterygrewthatofassault.[FN1]Muchlatertherecameaqualifiedprotectionoftheindividualagainstoffensivenoisesandodors,againstdustandsmoke,andexcessivevibration震動(dòng).Thelawofnuisance傷害wasdeveloped.[FN2]Soregardforhumanemotionssoonextendedthescopeofpersonalimmunitybeyondthebodyoftheindividual.Hisreputation,thestandingamonghisfellow-men,wasconsidered,andthelawofslanderandlibelarose.[FN3]Man'sfamilyrelationsbecameapartofthelegalconceptionofhislife,andthealienation疏遠(yuǎn)ofawife'saffections感情washeldremediable.[FN4]Occasionallythelawhalted,—asinitsrefusaltorecognizetheintrusionbyseductionuponthehonorofthefamily.Butevenherethedemandsofsocietyweremet.Ameanfiction,theactionperquodservitiumamisit他由此人去仆人的服務(wù),wasresortedto,andbyallowingdamagesforinjurytotheparents'feelings,anadequateremedywasordinarilyafforded.[FN5]Similartotheexpansionoftherighttolifewasthegrowthofthelegalconceptionofproperty.Fromcorporeal肉體的propertyarosetheincorporeal精神的rightsissuingoutofit;andthenthereopenedthewiderealmofintangibleproperty,intheproductsandprocessesofthemind,[FN6]*195asworksofliteratureandart,[FN1]goodwill,[FN2]tradesecrets,andtrademarks.[FN3]感覺，直覺震動(dòng)傷害疏遠(yuǎn)感情他由此人去仆人的服務(wù)肉體的精神的Thisdevelopmentofthelawwasinevitable.Theintense強(qiáng)大的intellectualandemotionallife,andtheheighteningofsensationswhichcamewiththeadvanceofcivilization,madeitcleartomenthatonlyapartofthepain,pleasure,andprofitoflifelayinphysicalthings.Thoughts,emotions,andsensationsdemandedlegalrecognition,andthebeautifulcapacityforgrowthwhichcharacterizesthecommonlawenabledthejudgestoaffordtherequisiteprotection,withouttheinterposition干涉ofthelegislature.強(qiáng)大的干涉法官對于新型權(quán)利的稱呼是學(xué)術(shù)研究的關(guān)注點(diǎn)，再輔之以學(xué)術(shù)的論證，特別是社會(huì)情勢的變遷。Recentinventionsandbusinessmethodscallattentiontothenextstepwhichmustbetakenfortheprotectionoftheperson,andforsecuringtothe,individualwhatJudgeCooleycallstheright“tobeletalone.”[FN4]Instantaneous瞬間的photographsandnewspaperenterprisehaveinvadedthesacredprecincts周圍地區(qū)ofprivateanddomesticlife;andnumerousmechanicaldevicesthreatentomakegoodthepredictionthat“whatiswhisperedintheclosetshallbeproclaimedfromthehouse-tops.”Foryearstherehasbeenafeelingthatthelawmustaffordsomeremedyfortheunauthorizedcirculationofportraitsofprivatepersons;[FN5]andtheeviloftheinvasionofprivacybythenewspapers,longkeenly強(qiáng)烈地felt,hasbeenbutrecentlydiscussedbyanablewriter.[FN6]TheallegedfactsofasomewhatnotoriouscasebroughtbeforeaninferiortribunalinNewYorkafewmonthsago,[FN7]directlyinvolvedtheconsideration*196oftherightofcirculatingportraits;andthequestionwhetherourlawwillrecognizeandprotecttherighttoprivacyinthisandinotherrespectsmustsooncomebeforeourcourtsforconsideration.瞬間的周圍地區(qū)強(qiáng)烈地Ofthedesirability—indeedofthenecessity—ofsomesuchprotection,therecan,itisbelieved,benodoubt.Thepressisoversteppingineverydirectiontheobviousboundsofproprietyandofdecency體面.Gossipisnolongertheresourceoftheidleandofthevicious惡毒的,buthasbecomeatrade,whichispursuedwithindustryaswellaseffrontery厚顏無恥.Tosatisfyaprurient好色的tastethedetailsofsexualrelationsarespreadbroadcastinthecolumnsofthedailypapers.Tooccupytheindolent煽情的,column專欄uponcolumnisfilledwithidle無聊的gossip,whichcanonlybeprocured獲得byintrusionuponthedomesticcircle.Theintensity緊張andcomplexityoflife,attendantuponadvancingcivilization,haverenderednecessarysomeretreatfromtheworld,andman,undertherefininginfluenceofculture,hasbecomemoresensitivetopublicity,sothatsolitudeandprivacyhavebecomemoreessentialtotheindividual;butmodernenterpriseandinventionhave,throughinvasionsuponhisprivacy,subjectedhimtomentalpainanddistress,fargreaterthancouldbeinflictedbymerebodilyinjury.Noristheharmwroughtbysuchinvasionsconfinedtothesufferingofthosewhomaybemade體面惡毒的厚顏無恥好色的煽情的專欄無聊的獲得緊張（隱私報(bào)道）的供給創(chuàng)造了需求thesubjectsofjournalisticorotherenterprise.Inthis,asinotherbranchesofcommerce,thesupplycreatesthedemand.Eachcropofunseemly不體面的gossip,thusharvested,becomestheseedofmore,and,indirectproportiontoitscirculation,resultsinaloweringofsocialstandardsandofmorality.Evengossipapparentlyharmless,whenwidelyandpersistentlycirculated,ispotent強(qiáng)有力的forevil.Itbothbelittles輕視andperverts歪曲.Itbelittlesbyinvertingtherelativeimportanceofthings,thusdwarfing使矮小thethoughtsandaspirationsofapeople.Whenpersonalgossipattainsthedignityofprint,andcrowdsthespaceavailableformattersofrealinteresttothecommunity,whatwonderthattheignorantandthoughtlessmistakeitsrelativeimportance.Easyofcomprehension,appealingtothatweaksideofhumannaturewhichisneverwhollycastdownbythemisfortunesandfrailties缺點(diǎn)ofourneighbors,noonecanbesurprisedthatitusurp篡奪stheplaceofinterestinbrainscapableofotherthings.Triviality瑣事destroysatoncerobustness強(qiáng)壯ofthoughtanddelicacy優(yōu)雅offeeling.Noenthusiasmcanflourish,nogenerousimpulsecansurviveunderitsblightinginfluence.不體面的強(qiáng)有力的輕視歪曲使矮小缺點(diǎn)篡奪瑣事強(qiáng)壯優(yōu)雅*197Itisourpurposetoconsiderwhethertheexistinglawaffordsaprinciplewhichcanproperlybeinvokedtoprotecttheprivacyoftheindividual;and,ifitdoes,whatthenatureandextentofsuchprotectionis.上述部分就是問題的提出：如何能夠保護(hù)個(gè)人的隱私？如果可以，則其保護(hù)的性質(zhì)及程度是什么？Owingtothenatureoftheinstrumentsbywhichprivacyisinvaded侵入,theinjuryinflictedbearsasuperficialresemblancetothewrongsdealtwithbythelawofslanderandoflibel,whilealegalremedyforsuchinjuryseemstoinvolvethetreatmentofmerewoundedfeelings,asasubstantivecauseofaction.Theprincipleonwhichthelawofdefamationrests,covers,however,aradically根本上-differentclassofeffectsfromthoseforwhichattentionisnowasked.Itdealsonlywithdamagetoreputation,withtheinjurydonetotheindividualinhisexternalrelationstothecommunity,byloweringhimintheestimationofhisfellows.Thematterpublishedofhim,howeverwidelycirculated,andhoweverunsuitedtopublicity,must,inordertobeactionable,haveadirecttendencytoinjurehiminhisintercourse交往withothers,andevenifinwritingorinprint,mustsubjecthimtothehatred敵意,ridicule嘲笑,orcontempt輕蔑ofhisfellow-men,—theeffectofthepublicationuponhisestimateofhimselfanduponhisownfeelingsnotforminganessentialelementinthecauseofaction.Inshort,thewrongsandcorrelativerightsrecognizedbythelawofslanderandlibelareintheirnaturematerialratherthanspiritual.Thatbranchofthelawsimplyextendstheprotectionsurroundingphysicalpropertytocertainoftheconditionsnecessaryorhelpfultoworldlyprosperity繁榮.Ontheotherhand,ourlawrecognizesnoprincipleuponwhichcompensationcanbegrantedformereinjurytothefeelings.Howeverpainfulthementaleffectsuponanotherofanact,thoughpurelywantonorevenmalicious,yetiftheactitselfisotherwiselawful,thesufferinginflictedisdamnumabsqueinjuria無不法行為的損害.Injuryoffeelingsmayindeedbetakenaccountofinascertaining確定theamountofdamageswhenattendingwhatisrecognizedasalegalinjury;[FN1]*198butoursystem,unliketheRomanlaw,doesnotaffordaremedyevenformentalsufferingwhichresultsfrommerecontumely侮辱andinsult,fromanintentionalandunwarrantedviolationofthe“honor”ofanother.[FN1]侵入根本上交往敵意嘲笑輕蔑繁榮無不法行為的損害確定侮辱及誹謗、名譽(yù)侵權(quán)的區(qū)別；法律對于精神損害不提供任何救濟(jì)Itisnothowevernecessary,inordertosustaintheviewthatthecommonlawrecognizesandupholdsaprincipleapplicabletocasesofinvasionofprivacy,toinvoketheanalogy,whichisbutsuperficial,toinjuriessustained,eitherbyanattackuponreputationorbywhatthecivilianscalledaviolationofhonor;forthelegaldoctrinesrelatingtoinfractions違法，違反ofwhatisordinarilytermedthecommon-lawrighttointellectualandartisticpropertyare,itisbelieved,butinstancesandapplicationsofageneralrighttoprivacy,whichproperlyunderstoodaffordaremedyfortheevilsunderconsideration.違法，違反Thecommonlawsecurestoeachindividualtherightofdetermining,ordinarily,towhatextenthisthoughts,sentiments感情,andemotionsshallbecommunicatedtoothers.[FN2]Underoursystemofgovernment,hecanneverbecompelledtoexpressthem(exceptwhenuponthewitness-stand);andevenifhehaschosentogivethemexpression,hegenerallyretainsthepowertofixthelimitsofthepublicitywhichshallbegiventhem.Theexistenceofthisrightdoesnotdependupontheparticular*199methodofexpressionadopted.Itisimmaterialwhetheritbebyword[FN1]orbysigns,[FN2]inpainting,[FN3]bysculpture,orinmusic.[FN4]Neitherdoestheexistenceoftherightdependuponthenatureorvalueofthethoughtoremotion,norupontheexcellenceofthemeansofexpression.[FN5]Thesameprotectionisaccordedtoacasualletteroranentryinadiaryandtothemostvaluablepoemoressay,toabotch笨拙的修補(bǔ)ordaub涂抹andtoamasterpiece杰作.Ineverysuchcasetheindividualisentitledtodecidewhetherthatwhichishisshallbegiventothepublic.[FN6]Nootherhastherighttopublishhisproductionsinanyform,withouthisconsent.Thisrightiswhollyindependentofthematerialonwhich,orthemeansbywhich,thethought,sentiment,oremotionisexpressed.Itmayexistindependentlyofanycorporeal物質(zhì)的being,asinwordsspoken,asongsung,adramaacted.Orifexpressedonanymaterial,asapoeminwriting,theauthormayhavepartedwiththepaper,withoutforfeitinganyproprietaryrightinthecompositionitself.Therightislostonlywhentheauthorhimselfcommunicateshisproductiontothepublic,—inotherwords,*200publishesit.[FN1]Itisentirelyindependentofthecopyrightlaws,andtheirextensionintothedomainofart.Theaimofthosestatutesistosecuretotheauthor,composer,orartisttheentireprofitsarisingfrompublication;butthecommon-lawprotectionenableshimtocontrolabsolutelytheactofpublication,andintheexerciseofhisowndiscretion,todecidewhetherthereshallbeanypublicationatall.[FN2]Thestatutoryrightisofnovalue,unlessthereisapublication;thecommon-lawrightislostassoonasthereisapublication.感情笨拙的修補(bǔ)涂抹杰作物質(zhì)的這里似乎談的是知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)（如著作權(quán)中的發(fā)表權(quán)）Whatisthenature,thebasis,ofthisrighttopreventthepublicationofmanuscriptsorworksofart?Itisstatedtobetheenforcementofarightofproperty;[FN3]andnodifficultyarisesinacceptingthisview,solongaswehaveonlytodealwiththereproductionofliteraryandartisticcompositions.Theycertainlypossessmanyoftheattributesofordinaryproperty:theyaretransferable;theyhaveavalue;andpublicationorreproductionisausebywhichthatvalueisrealized.Butwherethevalueoftheproductionisfoundnotintherighttotaketheprofitsarisingfrompublication,butinthepeaceofmindorthereliefaffordedbytheabilitytopreventanypublicationatall,itisdifficulttoregardtherightasoneofproperty,inthecommonacceptation*201ofthatterm.Amanrecordsinalettertohisson,orinhisdiary,thathedidnotdine用餐withhiswifeonacertainday.Nooneintowhosehandsthosepapersfallcouldpublishthemtotheworld,evenifpossessionofthedocumentshadbeenobtainedrightfully;andtheprohibitionwouldnotbeconfinedtothepublicationofacopyoftheletteritself,orofthediaryentry;therestraintextendsalsotoapublicationofthecontents.Whatisthethingwhichisprotected?Surely,nottheintellectualactofrecordingthefactthatthehusbanddidnotdinewithhiswife,butthatfactitself.Itisnottheintellectualproduct,butthedomesticoccurrence.家庭事件信息的保護(hù)，已區(qū)別于作品的保護(hù)Amanwritesadozenletterstodifferentpeople.Nopersonwouldbepermittedtopublishalistoftheletterswritten.Ifthelettersorthecontentsofthediarywereprotectedasliterarycompositions,thescopeoftheprotectionaffordedshouldbethesamesecuredtoapublishedwritingunderthecopyrightlaw.Butthecopyrightlawwouldnotpreventanenumeration列舉oftheletters,orthepublicationofsomeofthefactscontainedtherein.Thecopyrightofaseriesofpaintingsoretching銅版畫swouldpreventareproductionofthepaintingsaspictures;butitwouldnotpreventapublicationofalistorevenadescriptionofthem.[FN1]Yetinthefamouscaseof*202PrinceAlbertv.Strange,thecourtheldthatthecommon-lawruleprohibitednotmerelythereproductionoftheetchingswhichtheplaintiffandQueenVictoriahadmadefortheirownpleasure,butalso“thepublishing(atleastbyprintingorwriting),thoughnotbycopyorresemblance,adescriptionofthem,whethermoreorlesslimitedorsummary,whetherintheformofacatalogueorotherwise.”[FN1]Likewise,anunpublishedcollectionofnewspossessingnoelementofaliterarynatureisprotectedfrompiracy.[FN2]用餐家庭事件信息的保護(hù)，已區(qū)別于作品的保護(hù)列舉銅版畫版權(quán)法不能保護(hù)隱私Thatthisprotectioncannotrestupontherighttoliteraryorartisticpropertyinanyexactsense,appearsthemoreclearly*203whenthesubject-matterforwhichprotectionisinvokedisnotevenintheformofintellectualproperty,buthastheattributesofordinarytangibleproperty.Supposeamanhasacollectionofgems寶石orcuriosities稀奇物品whichhekeepsprivate:itwouldhardlybecontendedthatanypersoncouldpublishacatalogueofthem,andyetthearticlesenumeratedarecertainlynotintellectualpropertyinthelegalsense,anymorethanacollectionofstoves火爐orofchairs.[FN1]寶石稀奇物品火爐Thebeliefthattheideaofpropertyinitsnarrowsensewasthebasisoftheprotectionofunpublishedmanuscriptsledanablecourttorefuse,inseveralcases,injunctionsagainstthepublicationofprivateletters,onthegroundthat“l(fā)ettersnotpossessingtheattributesofliterarycompositionsarenotpropertyentitledtoprotection;”andthatitwas“evidenttheplaintiffcouldnothaveconsideredthelettersasofanyvaluewhateverasliteraryproductions,foralettercannotbeconsideredofvaluetotheauthorwhichheneverwouldconsenttohavepublished.”[FN2]But*204thesedecisionshavenotbeenfollowed,[FN1]anditmaynowbeconsideredsettledthattheprotectionaffordedbythecommonlawtotheauthorofanywritingisentirelyindependentofitspecuniaryvalue,itsintrinsic內(nèi)在的merits,orofanyintentiontopublishthesame,and,ofcourse,also,whollyindependentofthematerial,ifany,uponwhich,orthemodeinwhich,thethoughtorsentimentwasexpressed.內(nèi)在的Althoughthecourtshaveassertedthattheyrestedtheirdecisionsonthenarrowgroundsofprotectiontoproperty,yettherearerecognitionsofamoreliberal自由主義的doctrine.ThusinthecaseofPrinceAlbertv.Strange,alreadyreferredto,theopinionsbothoftheVice-ChancellorandoftheLordChancellor,onappeal,showamoreorlessclearlydefinedperception觀念ofaprinciplebroaderthanthosewhichweremainlydiscussed,andonwhichtheybothplacedtheirchiefreliance.Vice-ChancellorKnightBrucereferredtopublishingofamanthathehad“writtentoparticularpersonsoronparticularsubjects”asaninstanceofpossiblyinjuriousdisclosuresastoprivatematters,thatthecourtswouldinapropercaseprevent;yetitisdifficulttoperceive理解how,insuchacase,anyrightofproperty,inthenarrowsense,wouldbedrawninquestion,orwhy,ifsuchapublicationwouldberestrainedwhenitthreatenedtoexposethevictimnotmerelytosarcasm諷刺,buttoruin毀滅,itshouldnotequallybeenjoined禁止,ifitthreatenedtoembitter使受苦hislife.Todepriveamanofthepotentialprofitstoberealizedbypublishingacatalogueofhisgemscannotpersebeawrongtohim.Thepossibilityoffutureprofitsisnotarightofpropertywhichthelawordinarilyrecognizes;itmust,therefore,beaninfraction違反ofotherrightswhichconstitutesthewrongfulact,andthatinfractionisequallywrongful,whetheritsresultsaretoforestall阻止theprofitsthattheindividualhimselfmightsecurebygivingthematterapublicityobnoxious討厭的tohim,ortogainanadvantageattheexpenseofhismentalpainandsuffering.Ifthefictionofpropertyinanarrowsensemustbepreserved,itisstilltruethattheendaccomplishedbythegossip-monger兜售isattainedbytheuseofthatwhich*205isanother's,thefactsrelatingtohisprivatelife,whichhehasseenfittokeepprivate.LordCottenhamstatedthataman“isentitledtobeprotectedintheexclusiveuseandenjoymentofthatwhichisexclusivelyhis,”andcitedwithapprovaltheopinionofLordEldon,asreportedinamanuscriptnoteofthecaseofWyattv.Wilson,in1820,respectinganengraving雕刻ofGeorgetheThirdduringhisillness,totheeffectthat“ifoneofthelateking'sphysicianshadkeptadiaryofwhatheheardandsaw,thecourtwouldnot,intheking'slifetime,havepermittedhimtoprintandpublishit;”andLordCottenhamdeclared,inrespecttotheactsofthedefendantsinthecasebeforehim,that“privacyistherightinvaded.”Butifprivacyisoncerecognizedasarightentitledtolegalprotection,theinterposition介入，干涉ofthecourtscannotdependontheparticularnatureoftheinjuriesresulting.自由主義的觀念理解諷刺毀滅禁止使受苦違反阻止討厭的兜售雕刻介入，干涉把他人信件公布是對私事的公開，在此個(gè)案中英國法官雖然提及了隱私權(quán)，但事實(shí)上還是依賴于傳統(tǒng)的法律制度（如發(fā)表、侵害）加以審理。Theseconsiderationsleadtotheconclusionthattheprotectionaffordedtothoughts,sentiments,andemotions,expressedthroughthemediumofwritingorofthearts,sofarasitconsistsinpreventingpublication,ismerelyaninstanceoftheenforcementofthemoregeneralrightoftheindividualtobeletalone.Itisliketherightnottobeassaultedorbeaten,therightnottobeimprisoned,therightnottobemaliciouslyprosecuted,therightnottobedefamed.Ineachoftheserights,asindeedinallotherrightsrecognizedbythelaw,thereinheresthequalityofbeingownedorpossessed—and(asthatisthedistinguishingattributeofproperty)theremaybesomepropriety正當(dāng)，適當(dāng)inspeakingofthoserightsasproperty.But,obviously,theybearlittleresemblancetowhatisordinarilycomprehendedunderthatterm.Theprinciplewhichprotectspersonalwritingsandallotherpersonalproductions,notagainsttheftandphysicalappropriation挪用,butagainstpublicationinanyform,isinrealitynottheprincipleofprivateproperty,butthatofaninviolatepersonality.[FN1]正當(dāng)，適當(dāng)挪用此類發(fā)表行為，不是侵犯私人財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)，而是違反人格。*206Ifwearecorrectinthisconclusion,theexistinglawaffordsaprinciplewhichmaybeinvokedtoprotecttheprivacyoftheindividualfrominvasioneitherbythetooenterprisingpress,thephotographer,orthepossessorofanyothermoderndeviceforrecordingorreproducingscenesorsounds.Fortheprotectionaffordedisnotconfinedbytheauthoritiestothosecaseswhereanyparticularmediumorformofexpressionhasbeenadopted,nortoproductsoftheintellect.Thesameprotectionisaffordedtoemotionsandsensationsexpressedinamusicalcompositionorotherworkofartastoaliterarycomposition;andwordsspoken,apantomime啞劇acted,asonata奏鳴曲performed,isnolessentitledtoprotectionthanifeachhadbeenreducedtowriting.Thecircumstancethatathoughtoremotionhasbeenrecordedinapermanentformrenders提供itsidentificationeasier,andhencemaybeimportantfromthepointofviewofevidence,butithasnosignificanceasamatterofsubstantiveright.If,then,thedecisionsindicateageneralrighttoprivacyforthoughts,emotions,andsensations,theseshouldreceivethesameprotection,whetherexpressedinwriting,orinconduct,inconversation,inattitudes,orinfacialexpression.啞劇奏鳴曲提供Itmaybeurgedthatadistinctionshouldbetakenbetweenthe*207deliberateexpressionofthoughtsandemotionsinliteraryorartisticcompositionsandthecasual非正式的andofteninvoluntaryexpressiongiventothemintheordinaryconductoflife.Inotherwords,itmaybecontendedthattheprotectionaffordedisgrantedtotheconscious有意識(shí)的productsoflabor,perhapsasanencouragementtoeffort.[FN1]Thiscontention,howeverplausible有道理的,has,infact,littletorecommendit.Iftheamountoflaborinvolvedbeadoptedasthetest,wemightwellfindthattheefforttoconductone'sselfproperlyinbusinessandindomesticrelationshadbeenfargreaterthanthatinvolvedinpaintingapictureorwritingabook;onewouldfindthatitwasfareasiertoexpresslofty高尚的sentimentsinadiarythanintheconductofanoble高貴的life.Ifthetestofdeliberatenessoftheactbeadopted,muchcasualcorrespondencewhichisnowaccordedfullprotectionwouldbeexcluded排除fromthebeneficentoperationofexistingrules.Afterthedecisionsdenyingthedistinctionattemptedtobemadebetweenthoseliteraryproductionswhichitwasintendedtopublishandthosewhichitwasnot,allconsiderationsoftheamountoflaborinvolved,thedegreeofdeliberation,thevalueoftheproduct,andtheintentionofpublishingmustbeabandoned,andnobasisisdiscerned辨別uponwhichtherighttorestrainpublicationandreproductionofsuchso-calledliteraryandartisticworkscanberested,excepttherighttoprivacy,asapartofthemoregeneralrighttotheimmunityoftheperson,—therighttoone'spersonality.非正式的有意識(shí)的有道理的高尚的高貴的排除辨別Itshouldbestatedthat,insomeinstanceswhereprotectionhasbeenaffordedagainstwrongfulpublication,thejurisdictionhasbeenasserted,notonthegroundofproperty,oratleastnotwhollyonthatground,butuponthegroundofanallegedbreachofanimpliedcontractorofatrustorconfidence.除了財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)理由外，還有兩方面理由：一是隱含合同的違反，一是信托或信任的違反Thus,inAbernethyv.Hutchinson,3L.J.Ch.209(1825),wheretheplaintiff,adistinguished卓越的surgeon,soughttorestrainthepublicationinthe“Lancet”ofunpublishedlectureswhichhehaddeliveredatSt.Bartholomew'sHospitalinLondon,LordEldon*208doubtedwhethertherecouldbepropertyinlectureswhichhadnotbeenreducedtowriting,butgrantedtheinjunctiononthegroundofbreachofconfidence,holding“thatwhenpersonswereadmittedaspupilsorotherwise,toheartheselectures,althoughtheywereorallydelivered,andalthoughthepartiesmightgototheextent,iftheywereabletodoso,ofputtingdownthewholebymeansofshort-hand短期的,yettheycoulddothatonlyforthepurposesoftheirowninformation,andcouldnotpublish,forprofit,thatwhichtheyhadnotobtainedtherightofselling.”卓越的短期的InPrinceAlbertv.Strange,1McN.&G.25(1849),LordCottenham,onappeal,whilerecognizingarightofpropertyintheetchingswhichofitselfwouldjustifytheissuanceoftheinjunction,stated,afterdiscussingtheevidence,thathewasboundtoassumethatthepossessionoftheetchingsbythedefendanthad“itsfoundationinabreachoftrust,confidence,orcontract,”andthatuponsuchgroundalsotheplaintiff'stitletotheinjunctionwasfullysustained.InTuckv.Priester,19Q.B.D.639(1887),theplaintiffswereownersofapicture,andemployedthedefendanttomakeacertainnumberofcopies.Hedidso,andmadealsoanumberofothercopiesforhimself,andofferedthemforsaleinEnglandatalowerprice.Subsequently,theplaintiffsregisteredtheircopyrightinthepicture,andthenbroughtsuitforaninjunctionanddamages.TheLordsJusticesdiffered區(qū)別astotheapplicationofthecopyrightactstothecase,butheldunanimouslythatindependentlyofthoseacts,theplaintiffswereentitledtoaninjunctionanddamagesforbreachofcontract.區(qū)別此案是油畫復(fù)制權(quán)，但基于合同的約定InPollardv.PhotographicCo.,40Ch.Div.345(1888),aphotographerwhohadtakenalady'sphotographundertheordinarycircumstanceswasrestrainedfromexhibitingit,andalsofromsellingcopiesofit,onthegroundthatitwasabreachofanimpliedterminthecontract,andalsothatitwasabreachofconfidence.Mr.JusticeNorthinterjected插話intheargumentoftheplaintiff'scounseltheinquiry:“Doyoudisputethatifthenegative底片likeness樣子，相似物weretakenonthesly秘密地,thepersonwhotookitmightexhibitcopies?”andcounselfortheplaintiffanswered:“Inthatcasetherewouldbenotrustorconsiderationtosupportacontract.”Later,thedefendant'scounselarguedthat“apersonhasnoproper