(Download) "Bennett v. Gusdorf" by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Bennett v. Gusdorf
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 29, 1935
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
Photographers ? Violation of Implied Contract not to Use Negative for Photographers Own Purposes ? Complaint ? Sufficiency ? Evidence ? Admission of Testimony Showing Wrong not Charged in Complaint Reversible Error ? Trial ? Objection Once Made Saves Point for All Purposes of Appeal. Photographs and Photographers ? Implied Contract That Photographer will not Use Negative for Own Purposes. 1. A photographer who, in the usual course of his business, is employed to make a negative and photographs for another has no right to use the negative for his own purposes, the theory being that there arises an implied contract that he shall not do so. Same ? Breach of Implied Contract not to Use Negative ? Complaint ? Sufficiency. 2. Under the above rule held, that the complaint in an action by a young girl against a photographer for damages for unauthorized use of her photograph for advertising purposes by displaying it in various business places, alleging, inter alia, that her right of privacy was destroyed, and she humiliated and disgraced, stated a cause of action as for breach of an implied contract, contrary to the contention of defendant that plaintiff endeavored to state a cause of action in tort for interference with plaintiffs right of privacy, that no such right of action existed under the common law and that, therefore, there being no statute authorizing such an action, there was no such right. Same ? Evidence of Matter Foreign to Issues and Tending to Charge Defendant With Separate Wrong ? Admission Prejudicial Error. 3. In an action against a photographer for damages for unauthorized use of a photograph of a young girl (plaintiff) admission of testimony to the effect that defendant and another man, after the photograph had been taken, had followed plaintiff in an automobile as she left a store, a matter foreign to the issues and tending to charge defendant with a separate and distinct wrong, held prejudicially erroneous in view of the circumstances of the case and the size of the verdict awarded plaintiff. Trial ? Evidence ? Objection Once Made Saves Point for All Purposes of Appeal ? Motion to Strike Testimony not Necessary. 4. Where an objection has once been properly lodged against a certain line of testimony, the rules of practice do not require repetition of objection to testimony of the same nature; the objection saves the point for purposes of appeal, and after admission of the testimony the objecting party was not required to move that it be stricken from the record. - Page 40