## Facts

- Paolo Pavesich, an Atlanta artist, alleged his recognizable photograph was published without consent in a newspaper advertisement for a life insurance company.
- The advertisement juxtaposed his likeness with an image of an ill and poorly dressed person, implying contrasting outcomes based on whether one bought insurance.
- The advertisement attributed to Pavesich a statement that he purchased insurance from the company and was receiving annual dividends.
- Pavesich alleged the attributed statement was false; he had never held a policy with the company and never made the statement.
- He alleged the publication subjected him to ridicule, particularly among acquaintances who knew the statement was untrue, and was especially offensive given his profession.
- The photograph was allegedly obtained through the insurer’s agent from a photographer who supplied the negative with knowledge of the intended advertising use, but without Pavesich’s consent.
- Pavesich sought damages for invasion of privacy and related harm.

## Issues

1. Whether Georgia law recognizes a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on nonconsensual commercial use of a person’s likeness.
2. Whether the publication was independently actionable as libel due to false statements attributed to the plaintiff that tended to expose him to ridicule.
3. Whether the absence of prior Georgia precedent recognizing a privacy right required dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court’s dismissal on general demurrer and remanded.
- The court held the petition stated a cause of action for invasion of the right of privacy based on unauthorized commercial appropriation of likeness.
- The court held the petition also stated a claim for libel because the publication falsely attributed statements to the plaintiff and tended to hold him up to ridicule.
- The court rejected the argument that lack of earlier precedent barred relief where established legal principles could be applied to a new factual instance.

## Legal Principles

- A legally protectable right of privacy exists, grounded in personal security and personal liberty, including the right “to be let alone” and to control whether one’s life is made public or kept private.
- Unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s likeness for advertising purposes can constitute an actionable invasion of privacy.
- A publication that falsely attributes statements to a person and tends to subject the person to contempt or ridicule may be libelous.
- The lack of prior case law recognizing a specific claim is not conclusive against the claim when the situation is new in factual instance but resolvable by applying recognized legal principles.
- The right of privacy is not absolute: it may be waived expressly or by implication, but any waiver is limited to what is reasonably necessary for the purpose of the waiver.
- Constitutional protections for speech and press limit privacy claims, but those liberties are also constrained by the rule against abuse; neither privacy nor expressive freedom may be used to destroy the other.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a tort right of privacy in Georgia and held that a nonconsensual, commercially motivated use of a person’s likeness—especially when coupled with false, ridicule-inviting attributions—can support claims for invasion of privacy and libel, requiring the case to proceed beyond the pleading stage.


Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905)