第頁(yè)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(guò)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(guò)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(jué)，直覺(jué),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(jué)，直覺(jué)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(duì)于新型權(quán)利的稱(chēng)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(shì)的變遷。Recentinventionsandbusinessmethodscallattentiontothenextstepwhichmustbetakenfortheprotectionoftheperson,andforsecuringtothe,individualwhatJudgeCooleycallstheright“tobeletalone.”[FN4]Instantaneous瞬間的photographsandnewspaperenterprisehaveinvadedthesacredprecincts周?chē)貐^(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?chē)貐^(qū)強(qiáng)烈地Ofthedesirability—indeedofthenecessity—ofsomesuchprotection,therecan,itisbelieved,benodoubt.Thepressisoversteppingineverydirectiontheobviousboundsofproprietyandofdecency體面.Gossipisnolongertheresourceoftheidleandofthevicious惡毒的,buthasbecomeatrade,whichispursuedwithindustryaswellaseffrontery厚顏無(wú)恥.Tosatisfyaprurient好色的tastethedetailsofsexualrelationsarespreadbroadcastinthecolumnsofthedailypapers.Tooccupytheindolent煽情的,column專(zhuān)欄uponcolumnisfilledwithidle無(wú)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(wú)恥好色的煽情的專(zhuān)欄無(wú)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(wèn)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(wú)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(wú)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(duì)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(huà)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(huà)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(guān)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(guān)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(duì)私事的公開(kāi)，在此個(gè)案中英國(guó)法官雖然提及了隱私權(quán)，但事實(shí)上還是依賴(lài)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(lèi)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(huà)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(huà)intheargumentoftheplaintiff'scounseltheinquiry:“Doyoudisputethatifthenegative底片likeness樣子，相似物weretakenonthesly秘密地,thepersonwhotookitmightexhibitcopies?”andcounselfortheplaintiffanswered:“Inthatcasetherewouldbenotrustorconsiderationtosupportacontract.”Later,thedefendant'scounselarguedthat“apersonhasnoproper