This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D are competitors in the chewing-gum sports card business. P made a contract with a ball-player providing that plaintiff for a stated term should have the exclusive right to use the ball-player's photograph in connection with the sales of plaintiff's gum; the ball-player agreed not to grant any other gum manufacturer a similar right during such term; the contract gave P an option to extend the term for a designated period. P claims that D, knowing of P's contract, deliberately induced the ball-player to authorize D, by a contract with D, to use the player's photograph in connection with the sales of D's gum either during the original or extended term of P's contract. D did use the photograph. P sued D. D contends the contract with P was no more than a release by the ball-player to plaintiff of the liability which, absent the release, P would have incurred in using the ball-player's photograph, because such a use, without his consent, would be an invasion of his right of privacy. D contends the statutory right of privacy is personal and not assignable; therefore, P's contract vested no 'property' right or other legal interest which D's conduct invaded. The court ruled for D and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.