## Facts

- Gabrielle Darley Melvin (formerly Gabrielle Darley) alleged that years earlier she had been a prostitute, was tried for murder, and was acquitted.
- She alleged that after the acquittal she left her prior life, married, and thereafter lived a respectable life; her social circle allegedly did not know of her past.
- Defendants produced and released a motion picture, *The Red Kimono*, and exhibited it widely.
- The film was allegedly based on plaintiff’s earlier life and used her maiden name, “Gabrielle Darley,” and defendants allegedly advertised the film as the true story of plaintiff.
- Plaintiff alleged the film’s exhibition caused acquaintances to learn of her past, leading to social rejection and causing mental and physical suffering.
- Plaintiff pleaded four causes of action: (1) invasion of privacy; and (2)–(4) alleged property-based claims in the incidents of her life and in her maiden name.
- The trial court sustained general and special demurrers to all counts; plaintiff declined to amend, and judgment was entered for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on defendants’ commercial republication of stigmatizing facts from plaintiff’s past, coupled with use of her real name, after her rehabilitation.
2. Whether plaintiff could state a cause of action based on a purported property right in the story of her life or in her maiden name.
3. Whether the fact that the underlying events appeared in public court records defeated plaintiff’s privacy claim at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part.
- It held the first cause of action (privacy) was sufficiently stated and the demurrer to that count should be overruled, allowing defendants to answer.
- It held the second, third, and fourth causes of action did not state claims because California law did not recognize a property right in the story of one’s life or in a name as pleaded.
- The matter was remanded with directions consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- California recognizes a privacy interest grounded in the state constitutional protection of the inalienable right to pursue and obtain happiness, which includes freedom from unwarranted and undesired publicity and the “right to be let alone.”
- Publication of past events contained in public judicial records is not, by itself, actionable as an invasion of privacy.
- A privacy claim may be stated where defendants, for commercial purposes, identify the plaintiff by her true name in connection with sensational publicity about stigmatizing past events, particularly where the plaintiff alleges rehabilitation and resulting harm from renewed public exposure.
- No cause of action lies on a theory that a person holds a proprietary interest in the story of their life (or a property right in their name) sufficient to bar others from using truthful life incidents; such claims, if any, sound in tort rather than property.

## Conclusion

The court permitted plaintiff’s privacy claim to proceed based on the alleged use of her real name to publicize discrediting past events in a commercial film after she had reformed, while rejecting her attempts to recast the dispute as infringement of a property right in her life story or maiden name.


Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal. App. 285 (Ct. App. 1931)