Reading Summary Chapter 6 #6

Topic Overview:
-The US Constitution, State, and federal laws and courts decisions offer some limited privacy protection
-Not all states allow false light suits; most that do require a plaintiff to prove publicity, identification, the published material was false or created a false impression, the statements or pictures put the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and the fdefendant knew the material was false or recklessly disregarded its falsity
-Courts recognize most libel defenses as defenses in false light cases, including conditional privelage, fair reporting, and truth
-A successful appropriation plaintiff must prove his or her name, picture, likeness, voice, or identity was used for commercial or trade purposes without his or her permission.
-See below for further explanation of Topic Overview in Relevant Doctrines
- Intrusion occurs if a person intentionally interferes with anothers solitude or private concerns through physical or technological means
-Generally, people on public property have no reasonable expectation of privacy, but particularly aggressive news gathering even on public property can be considered intrusion
-Journalists may use visible equipment to photograph or record on public property
A private facts plaintiff must show the widely disseminated facts were private, dealt with intimate or highly personal matters and were not of legitimate public concern
-The topic of a news story, rather than the individual people discussed in the story, determines whether the story is of public significance
Key Terms:
intrusion upon seclusion- Physically or technologically distrubing anothers reasonable expectation of privacy
Important Cases:
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v Cohn
A case involving freedom of the press publishing public information. The Court held that both a Georgia Statute prohibiting the release of a rape victim's name and its common-law privacy action counterpart were unconstitutional.
Riley v California
A case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrant less search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.
Relevant Doctrine:

Plaintiff’s Case for Intrusion & Defenses

Plaintiffs case:

1) A reasonable expectation of privacy

2) Intentional intrusion of privacy

3) The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person

Defenses:

Consent- A person cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy if he or she gave consent for someone to be on his or her property

Plaintiff’s Case for Appropriation/ Right of Publicity & Defenses

The appropriation tort may be divided into two torts:

1) Commercialization: Applying to someone who wants to remain private and unknown except to family and friends. Using this persons name, picture, likeness, or voice for advertising or other commercial purposes without permission is commercialization. It is invading this persons privacy, causing emotional distress

2) Right of Publicity: Applying to someone who wants to be known far and wide, to be a celebrity- a musician, athlete, movie start, or television personality. Using the persons name, picture, likeness, voice or identity- or a look-alike or sound-alike- for advertising or other commercial purposes without permission invades this persons right of publicity. It diminishes the persons economic value.

Plaintiffs Case:

1) Using a persons name, picture, likeness, voice, or identity

2) For advertising or other commercial uses

3) Without permission

Defenses:

Newsworthiness- The most common defense; If the content is not on the commercial/trade-use side of the bright line, it will be found newsworthy

Public Domain- Names and associated information may be widely available to the public and therefore cannot be protected by right of publicity

First Amendment- The artistic relevance test; a test to determine whether the use of a celebrity's name, picture, likeness, voice, or identity is relevant to a disputed works artistic purpose. It is used in cases regarding the infringement of a celebrity's right of publicity

the trans-formative test; a test to determine whether a creator has transformed a persons name, picture, likeness, voice, or identity for artistic purposes. If so, the person cannot win a right of publicity suit against the creator.

Predominant use test; In a right of publicity lawsuit, a test to determine whether the defendant used the plaintiffs name or picture more for commercial purposes or protected expression.

Ads for the Media- mass media may run advertisements for themselves without consent when using the names and likenesses of public figures if those figures were part of their original content.

Consent- The best appropriation defense; may be explicit, or implied, minors/those not mentally or emotionally capable cannot give consent, and consent is limited to the agreements terms.

Incidental Use- A court could rule that a persons name or likeness was used so briefly that the purpose was not to make a profit or gain commercial benefit

Current Issues:
Based on the Doxxing case in the book, as well as the rest of the material in this chapter, an issue that I believe is relevant to this topic is data security and breaching. Today we hear jokes about how we will talk about how much we need a new backpack, and then the next day we will get ads all over our social media for buying a new backpack. It is hard to tell just how much of our private information is truly private, which makes me decidedly more considerate and aware of websites that claim to protect your privacy versus those that have a weak privacy policy. It seems like anything can be hacked today, and it is important to recognize when your information is safe, and, if it is compromised, what steps you can take legally.
Questions: