Barbas — Volume 61, Issue 5

The tort of appropriation evolved from early twentieth-century privacy protections safeguarding dignity and emotional harm into a twentieth-century right focused on commercial exploitation and pecuniary damages. In 1900, Abigail Roberson sued after her image appeared in a flour advertisement, viewing the unauthorized commercial appropriation as an invasion of her right to privacy. By 1929, Gladys Loftus sought recovery not for emotional distress but purely for lost profits from unauthorized use of her image in a film advertisement. This shift from dignity-focused tort to profit-oriented "right of publicity" reflects growing American celebrity culture and commercial sophistication. By the 1950s, courts redesignated appropriation as a quasi-property right protecting the economic value of celebrity identity rather than the dignitary interests of ordinary people. William Prosser and subsequent scholars noted this transformation away from protecting privacy as personal integrity toward protecting commercial interest in identity. The article traces how early appropriation doctrine centered on safeguarding individuals from humiliation and mortification, but evolved to privilege advertisers' needs and celebrity economic interests. This historical shift demonstrates how tort law changed to accommodate mass consumer culture and commercial demands, leaving ordinary citizens' dignitary interests largely unprotected while benefiting celebrities and commercial entities.

Topics: Tort · Intellectual Property

Keywords: tort of appropriation · right of publicity · privacy · commercial exploitation · celebrity · Roberson v. Rochester · Loftus v. Greenwich · commercial identity