Law and Media

• approriation for a trade purpose
• instusion upon solitude
• publication of private information
• publishing material that puts person in false light

taking a person's name, picture, photograph, or likenss and using it for commerical gain without permission

right of publicity: protect indviduals from economic harm from when their name or image is used for advertising or trade puspoes and not compensated

artists created charcoal drawling of three stooges (as a single work of art it is ok), then printed them on t shirts for sale

• R: creative apropriation of celebritys can be protected as an individual expression
• O: Transformative elements test: Saderup guilty bc depiction of stooges didn't have significant exrpession

Not Protected: reproduction is a literal transation of celebrity's image

Protected : user added other elemtnes to image (transformed it into a paraody, used name in song, used celebrity's likeness as a vechile for expression of opinon)

Used hocke players name and likeness for a cartoon/ comic

Predominate use test:

Speech with a predominate artistic purpose is protected

speech with a predominate commerical purpose (ad, ad displays, false endorsement, commerical entertainment) is not

Fact that Broadcasts, newspaper, books that are sold for profit does not deny them libery of expression

• 1. Time Inc v. Hill
• Ingerson v. Fox
• 3. Hoffman v. Captial cities/Abc
• 4. downing v. Abercrombie

Family taken hostage in home. Best selling novel published about ordeal and exagerated details, made into broadway play, life magazine has article about play and links it to Hill family


SC: sides with Time ince

R: fact that newspapers, books, and magazines are sold for profit does not deny them the protection of liberty of expression

Exempts news broadcasts and other public affaris programing from appropriation claims

• D: hoffmans photo used in a fahsion feature (put celebrity heads on modles wearing contemporary clothes)
• Photo was not an ad but an editorial copy. Picture taken from photo used in publicity of a former movie he acted in.

R: viewed in context of article as a whole, combo of fahsion , humor, and editiorial content; any commerical aspects are inextricably interwined with expressive elements, so they cannot be separated

D: plaintiffs photo, sufer in 1960s, used in page adjacent to ad offering similar t-shirt. Publication was not a feature article (like in Hoffman) but a catalogue to sell Aber products

• R: Publisher hadn't connected the photo with the information in the article, thus was improper appropriation
• "Window dressing"

• Permits fleeting or brief use of individuals name or likeness in some commerical creations
• ex. models on cover of book for amazon.com

Use of a person's name or likeness in an ad for a magazine, newspaper, or tv program is not an appropriation if photograph or name has benn or will be part of news or information content

• 1. written (uncontestable)
• 2. orgal
• 3. implied: told that that image would be used for commerical purpose

• 1. under age 18
• 2. mentally ill
• 3. people in prison

Cannot intrude upon the solitude and private life of a person

The actual act of gathering the information, not the publication

Reasonable expectation of privacy

• 1. in plain sight
• 2. online (char rooms, emails stored at any time on computer of an internet service provider)
• 3. work place to what general public has access to

• D: ABC sent reporter to work as telephone psychic, reporter secretly photographed conversation with co-workers
• R: in workplace which genral public does not have unfettered access, employes enjoy limited expectation of privacy n ther conversation and other interactions

Dietman v. Time Ince

Cassidy v. ABC

• D: two reporters posed as husband and wife to investigate fake doctor
• R: homeowners should not be required to take the risk that what is heard or seen in their homes will be transmittedby photography or recording to the public at large

D: Polic undercover in massage parlor, parlor asks media to secretly film polic abuses

• R: Plaintiffs (the cops) were public officers acting in the line of duty
• Filming crew was in a public business not a private home
• Fliming crew was there at invatation of operator of premis

D: Conversation illegally intercepted and taped by two offical of a school union and given to media

R: Broadcaster of tape were not liable bc they played not part in the illegal interception or obtainng of tape conversation

• Illegal to publish
• 1. what would be highly offensive to a reasonable person
• 2. is not of legitimate concern or interest

• 1. Publicity of private facts
• 2. revealation must be offesnive to a reasoanble person
• 3. material not of legitimate public concern

Lowe v. Heart: material that is communicated to the public at large or to a great number of people

• 1. cox v. cohn
• 2. Florida star v. BJF

d: broadcast name of rape victim against a GA shield law

R: Victims name already included in public court documents, thus is not a private fact and can be published

• D: Poice officer mistakenly gave reporter documernt of sexual assualt victims names that was not a public record
• info was published

R:Fact that state officals are not requried to disclose such reports does not make in unlawful for a newspaper to receive them when funished by government

Newspaper may publish truthful information it obatins lawfully

Legitimate public concern or interest extends to what readers and listernes actually find interesting

d: article about deadbeat child prodigiy

• D: newspaper published horrific phto of auto accident
• R: ammenr in which story is presented doesn't have an impact on whether it is a legit public interest

D: man wrongly identified as criminal sues for publication of private info about him

R: Involuntary public people do not receive enhanced protection in privacy actions as they do in libel

lose some privacy

Deal with private lives of newsworthy people

R: Line between public and private info is to be drawn when publicity ceases to be giving info which public is entitled and becomes morbid and seastional prying into private life for its own sake

1. by individuals once in public spotlight

D: Professor of criminal justice writes book on mass murder and rapists. Victim sues that material was private

R: facts revealed wer not private but public and that even if private they are of legitimate concer to the public

"Cox v. Cohen not limited to contemporaneous events."

• 1. not a story about a full or limited purpose public figure
• 2.Not a story of great interest
• 3. cannot be publicized simply to amuse or titlate audiences

• 1. the false light the person was placed in is offensive to a reasonable person
• 2. publisher of material was at fault when publication was made

Plaintiff does not have to show court that their reputation was harmed, only that falsity caused them embarrassment

• 1. Leave it to the press to see if it is newworthy
• 2. focus on social norms
• 3. Require logical nexus between person whose privacy was invaded and matter of legitimate public interest

Instusion upon a person's private affair that is highly offensvie to the reasonable person

1. nader v. general motors: overzealous survelliance in public when info sought is of confidential nature

2. Dietman v. Time inc: entering someone's home on fasle pretenses

defendant publically disclosed matter with reckless disregard for truth or knowledge of falsity

1. Carson v. jonny portable toliets: protects against unauthorized commerical exploitation of celebrity identity

2. Finger v. Omini publication : Photograph of plantiff used in magazine artilce without their permission, does not violate privacy interest so long as there is a "real relationship ' between photo and article topic

1. when by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly cause severe emotional distress

2. when professionals divulge patient or clinets cofidential info (no highly offensive test needed)

D: show cops didn't violate privacy for recording traffic stop without person's knowledge

R: eccentric reations and behavior is not a private fact that is offensive or not of public concern

D: tv show depicting person involved with murder

• R: Gates was limited purpose public figure in case, no defmation bc comments were right
• Yet Discovery liable for invasion of privacy, bc failed to prove Gate's tory was newsworthy

R: statue protecting publication of juvinellies in court is unconstitutinal prior restraitn