Book contents
- The Right to Privacy
- Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law
- The Right to Privacy
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Authorship, Secrecy, Privacy
- 2 Creative Self-fashioning
- 3 Intimate Images
- 4 Resisting Spectacle
- 5 Make It New!
- Appendix: Documentation
- Index
- Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law
- References
2 - Creative Self-fashioning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2017
Book contents
- The Right to Privacy
- Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law
- The Right to Privacy
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Authorship, Secrecy, Privacy
- 2 Creative Self-fashioning
- 3 Intimate Images
- 4 Resisting Spectacle
- 5 Make It New!
- Appendix: Documentation
- Index
- Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Right to PrivacyOrigins and Influence of a Nineteenth-Century Idea, pp. 14 - 37Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Works Cited
Census of Ireland for the Year 1841. (Reports from Commissioners, 1843). Parliamentary Papers 1780–1849, 24, i–liii.Google Scholar
Etchings by Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince Albert (1849b, February 3). Lady’s Newspaper and Pictorial Times, 59.Google Scholar
Etchings by Her Majesty and the Prince Consort (Advertisement) (1848, September 7). The Times, 5.Google Scholar
There Is So Little Legal Difficulty Involved in the Case of ‘His Royal Highness Prince Albert v Strange’ (1849, February 9). The Times, 5.Google Scholar
Bently, L. (2012). Prince Albert v Strange (1849). In Mitchell, C. and Mitchell, P. (Eds.), Landmark Cases in Equity (235–267). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Berenson, E. and Giloi, E. (Eds.) (2010). Constructing Charisma: Celebrity, Fame, and Power in Nineteenth-century Europe. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Booth, C. (1902). Life and Labour of the People in London, vol 1, First Series: Poverty. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
Booth, C. (1904). Life and Labour of the People in London, vol 3, First Series: Poverty. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
Bosco, R. and Yerson, J. (2015). Ralph Waldo Emerson: The Major Prose. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boyce, G. (1978). The Fourth Estate: The Reappraisal of a Concept. In Boyce, G., Curran, J. and Wingate, P. (Eds.). Newspaper History from the 17th Century to the Present Day. London: Constable.Google Scholar
Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457.Google Scholar
Chambers, E. (1999). An Indolent and Blundering Art? The Etching Revival and the Redefinition of Etching in England, 1838–1892. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Cornish, W. R. and Clark, G. de N. (1989). Law and Society in England 1750–1950. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Crowder v Hilton (1902) SASR 82.Google Scholar
Dickens v Lee (1844) 8 Jur 183.Google Scholar
Duchess of Argyll v Duke of Argyll (1967) Ch 302.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. W. (1841). Essays, with a preface by Thomas Carlyle. London: James Fraser, Regent Street.Google Scholar
Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 How St Tr 1029.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald v Kelburne and Karori Tramway Company, Limited (1901) 4 GLR 42.Google Scholar
Foster and Others v Mountford and Rigby Ltd (1976) 14 ALR 71.Google Scholar
Gartside v Outram (1856) 26 LJ Ch 113.Google Scholar
Gee v Pritchard (1818) 1 Swans 402.Google Scholar
Goyal, G. and Kumar, R. (2016). The Right to Privacy in India: Concept and Evolution. Gurgaon, India: Partridge Publishing.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. (1951). John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their Friendship and Subsequent Marriage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. E. (1998). The Complete Works of Harriet Taylor Mill. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. E. (2002). The Voice of Harriet Taylor Mill. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson v Wyatt (1863) 2 De G J & S 20.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. (1755). A Dictionary of the English Language. London: printed (in two volumes) by W Strahan for J and P Knapton, T and T Longman, C Hitch and L Hawes, A Millar and R and J Dodsley.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. (1828). A Dictionary of the English Language … to Which Are Prefixed a History of the Language, and an English Grammar, stereotyped from the last folio edition. London: Joseph Ogle Robinson.Google Scholar
Levitan, K. (2011). A Cultural History of the British Census: Envisaging the Multitude in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lord and Lady Perceval v Phipps (1813) 2 Ves & Bea 19.Google Scholar
Lyons, D. (1994). Rights, Welfare and Mill’s Moral Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manson, E. (1895). The Builders of Our Law during the Reign of Queen Victoria. London: H. Cox.Google Scholar
Martin v Wright (1833) 6 Sim 297.Google Scholar
Mason, N. (2013). Literary Advertising and the Shaping of British Romanticism. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
McCabe v Watson, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Moreton Bay, 4 January 1858, reported in Moreton Bay Courier, 6 January 1858.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1824–1868). Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire. Robson, J. and Hamburger, J. (Ed., 1982). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1849–1873). Later Letters. Mineka, F. and Lindley, D. (Ed., 1972). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty, republished in Warnock, M. (Ed., 1962). Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Essay on Bentham. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1861). Utilitarianism, republished in Warnock, M. (Ed., 1962). Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Essay on Bentham. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1870). Autobiography. Stillinger, J. (Ed., 1971). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P. (2005). The Making of the Modern Law of Defamation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P. (2006). The Foundations of Australian Defamation Law. Sydney Law Review, 28, 477–504.Google Scholar
Peart, S. (2015). Hayek on Mill: The Mill-Taylor Friendship and Related Writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollard v Photographic Company (1888) 40 ChD 345.Google Scholar
Prince Albert v Strange (1849a) 2 De G & Sm 652.Google Scholar
Prince Albert v Strange (1849b) 1 H & Tw 1.Google Scholar
Prince Albert v Strange, Bill, 20 October 1848, amended 28 October and 4 November 1848, TNA: C 14/778/A70.Google Scholar
Qualter, T. (1960). John Stuart Mill: Disciple of de Tocqueville. Western Political Quarterly, 13, 880–889.Google Scholar
Queen Victoria’s Journals. Retrieved from www.qvj.chadwyck.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/home.do.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. and Hitchens, L. (2006). Celebrity Privacy and Benefits of Simple History. In Kenyon, A. and Richardson, M. (Eds.), New Dimensions in Privacy Law (250–269). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. and Trabsky, M. (2011). Radio and the Technology of the Common Law in 1930s Australia: Victoria Park Racing v Taylor Revisited. Griffith Law Review, 20, 1020–1037.Google Scholar
Richardson, M., Bryan, M., Vranken, M. and Barnett, K. (2012). Breach of Confidence: Social Origins and Modern Developments. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. and Thomas, J. (2012). Fashioning Intellectual Property: Exhibition, Advertising and the Press 1789–1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, P. (2014). Bentham’s Critique of Natural Rights. In Zhai, Xiaobo and Quinn, M. (Eds.), Bentham’s Theory of Law and Public Opinion (208–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapling v Jones (1865) 11 HLC 290.Google Scholar
Vaughan, G. (2011). The Cult of the Queen Empress: Royal Portraiture in Colonial Victoria. Art Journal of the National Gallery of Victoria, 50, 29–43.Google Scholar
Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479.Google Scholar