The Right of Privacy & Property

After screening the movie John Goldfarb, Please Come Home, the University of Notre Dame haled 20th Century-Fox into New York State Supreme Court on the ground that its $4,000,000 farce "causes irreparable injury to the high prestige, reputation and good will of the university [TIME, Dec. 18]." Warmly agreeing, Justice Henry Clay Greenberg last week slapped a temporary injunction against the film's scheduled Christmas Day opening. "The script is ugly, vulgar and tawdry," said Greenberg. "This is a clear case of commercial piracy."

So valuable are Notre Dame's name and symbols that on occasion it has licensed Hollywood to use them at a tidy profit to itself. Twentieth Century-Fox, however, got no permission before plunging ahead with a film in which a befuddled Notre Dame football team is corrupted by Nubian dancers and walloped by treacherous Arabs coached by a Jewish U-2 pilot working for the CIA in a mythical Middle Eastern country. To the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, Notre Dame's president, whom the film depicts as "Father Ryan," there was only one answer: John Goldfarb, please go away.

"Patently Preposterous." In granting Hesburgh's wish, Justice Greenberg set a precedent that may widely affect publishers and other moviemakers if it survives in higher courts. Because a man's name is a property right, Greenberg might have enjoined the film solely on the ground that Father Hesburgh, who was easily recognizable as Father Ryan, had not given his consent. But Greenberg went farther. A university's name is also a property right, he said. To be sure, others may freely exploit it, and for profit, by virtue of the public's "right to know" and a constitutionally protected free speech and press. "Where, however, the use exceeds the bounds of legitimate public interest," said Greenberg, "the law will enjoin such exploitation."

Twentieth Century-Fox argued that "the plot is so patently preposterous that no one with the slightest sense of proportion could take it seriously." Precisely, said Greenberg. The film is not "a satire, burlesque or any other form of literary portrayal or criticism" of Notre Dame or its team. "The glaringly evident purpose and effect of defendants' 'tacking on' of the name and symbols of Notre Dame were to capitalize on the commercial value such name and symbols had acquired in the minds of the consuming public."

Despite Twentieth Century-Fox's plea that it has millions tied up in the film, it was Greenberg's opinion that "the rights of property and of privacy far outweigh any financial consideration." Fox "should have known that it could not appropriate another's property, created as the result of years of sacrifice and endeavour."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.