PRIVACY and PUBLICITY
Development of Privacy Law
"The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency.  Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery . . . ”
by turn of century states began to recognize a civil law right of privacy some passed statutes in others -- common law first laws prohibited using person's name or picture for advertising purposes without consent
privacy primarily matter of civil law (tort law) criminal statutes protect privacy in some narrow circumstances
Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co.   (1902) lithographed picture of girl on boxes of flour she objected lower courts found right of privacy NY Court of Appeals disagreed 1903 -- NY legislature acted
Four distinct forms of privacy invasion commercial appropriation of name or likeness [Right of Publicity] public disclosure of embarrassing private facts placing an individual in a false light intrusion upon physical seclusion
 
 
 
appropriation or misappropriation commercial use of a person's name or likeness without consent reason:  individuals alone should have the right to control the marketing or exploitation of their own person
Right of Publicity entertainers, sports figures, and other well-known personalities  names or likenesses or character created used to promote a product or for other commercial gain includes "identity"
Appropriation v. Right of Publicity Appropriation individuals personal right to privacy Right of Publicity celebrities property right involving commercial value of celebrity identity
commercial use exploitation directly for another's trade or self- enrichment purposes advertisements or promotions for products or services product endorsements
appearance in a news report not a commercial use exception:  Hugo Zacchini
 
no First Amendment privilege when broadcast performer's entire act (narrow, rare and much criticized exception)
many communications are hard to categorize public relations publications that include legitimate news or educational information
SFSU IS GREAT! Most San Francisco State Students say they received an excellent education. Application deadlines are . . .
BECA Faculty Top-Notch! Broadcast and Electronic Communication Arts students say that BECA faculty are among the best in the world.
Buy the Book! Sight Sound Motion  is the ultimate book on media aesthetics and is endorsed by San Francisco State students.
What about magazines and books?
Playgirl  case statute's (NY) language prohibited uses without consent "for purposes of trade" court said clear picture had been used for the "purpose of trade"
biggest problem for magazines that publish fictional works
what about the cover of a magazine or book? general rule:  cover picture is safe if it is derived from the newsworthy or educational content within person needs to be subject of the content  -- otherwise picture deemed to be for a purely, commercial, promotional purpose
Incidental Uses distinction also made whether individual's identity is incidental to the commercial purpose or directly in support of it but beware:  rarely is a person's appearance in a commercial passage purely incidental when in doubt -- do without (or get consent)
Special Problem:  Station Promotion news footage, not used in news, but in a promo spot verdict for broadcaster victim's appearance was merely incidental to commercial purpose of spot identity of the accident victim was immaterial
individuals must be readily identifiable in order to sue successfully for appropriation
name or likeness broad concept includes nicknames, voice or other mark of personal identity personal identity by whatever method of reference
Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. "the world's foremost commodian" "a celebrity has a protected pecuniary interest in the commercial exploitation of his identity . . . "
 
what about look-alikes? imitation -- though the sincerest form of flattery -- usually not appropriation but if public is confused -- verdict for the celebrity other courts have found for the celebrity on theory of unfair competition under Lanham Act  (false representation of association -- "likelihood of confusion") law unsettled -- no one rule
what about people no longer living? some states -- claim survives California -- creates transferable property right in "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness" for 50 years, if such had commercial value at time of death
can avoid all these problems if get consent consent should be in writing even if initial use will not be commercial gratuitous consent may be withdrawn (not binding) only a knowing consent is a valid consent
Appropriation v. First Amendment
Disclosure of Private Facts public disclosure of embarrassing private facts that are not newsworthy and when such disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person runs counter to idea that media free to disseminate truthful information so this tort is quite narrow and plaintiff's verdicts infrequent
Private Facts plaintiff must prove information was private tax returns are privileged limited, selective prior disclosures will not necessarily diminish private nature of facts (may disclose, in confidence, to family, close friends, or an employer) events that occur in public view are almost always public
"A Strange Kind of Love" photo of Pittsburgh Steelers fan with fly open court agreed magazine had deliberately exhibited the fan in an embarrassing manner but no recovery -- photo simply did not reveal anything private
photo taken at a public event everyone present could see knowing or implied consent not a matter concerning a private fact
however if embarrassment instantaneous and involuntary -- don't forfeit right of privacy just because at moment happened to be part of a public scene
public records public record privilege applies to all branches of government but not all documents or proceedings are public courts may seal documents
other lawfully obtained facts may you keep your name private in some circumstances?
Highly Offensive highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities not a subjective test -- i.e., that the person was upset must clearly overstep the prevailing notions of decency
Newsworthiness Defense does the public have a right to know these facts? difficult to draw line between newsworthy and not newsworthy
California uses a balancing test:  the social value of the facts disclosed v. the depth of the intrusion into private affairs other places -- ask jury to consider whether the disclosures are in line with customary news content
hazy boundaries learn basic rules and factual situations that signal danger unlike libel -- counterspeech, retraction nor correction will ease plaintiff's suffering
lapse of time Red Kimono  case different result today?
do rehabilitated criminals have privacy claims regarding past life? general rule that recall of past news events is a legitimate public endeavor long-past private matters should not be published unless would be legitimate news today
get consent don't forget the ethical considerations public benefit v. private trauma
False Light representation of an individual in a false and highly offensive manner before the public often accompanies claim of defamation aim is to compensate for personal embarrassment and anguish -- not damage to reputation available only to individuals
distortion embellishment fictionalization
distortion mismatching the audio and video (pull visual element out of the file)
Study shows  . . .  SFSU students more likely to  Drop out
embellishment false information added to journalistic accounts
fictionalization use of real, identifiable characters in imaginary tales test:  could a reasonable person reading your story believe the fictional character is in fact this particular real person? like libel, must show identification and publication
however, in libel -- publication to one person is sufficient but in false light need dissemination to the general public actual malice required opinion protected some states don't recognize tort
Intrusion intentional invasion of a person's physical seclusion or private affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person occurs in the information- gathering process if information published then invasion of privacy, etc.
not common plaintiffs rarely win
question:  was the individual in a place where she could reasonably expect privacy? no expectation in public is in private residences, hospital rooms, ambulances, hotel rooms, private offices, dressing rooms, public toilet stalls
what about things placed in the trash? same standard of "highly offensive” public benefit v. individual privacy but news gathering not yet recognized as providing overriding public benefit
use of subterfuge some cases have allowed subterfuge in getting consent risk we all take in dealing with others
but recording and intercepting actions, conversations a different matter
Public Places Jackie got an injunction against Galella -- he had to stay 25 feet from Jackie and 30 feet from her children harassment -- criminal violation under New York law
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Fraud Breach of Contract (newsworthiness might outweigh)
Criminal Protections restrictions on disclosure hard to prevent media from disclosing what lawfully know may prevent govt employees/participants from talking
restrictions on information gathering electronic surveillance Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 anti-wiretap statute state laws

Privacy 2011 spring

  • 1.
  • 2.
  • 3.
    "The press isoverstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery . . . ”
  • 4.
    by turn ofcentury states began to recognize a civil law right of privacy some passed statutes in others -- common law first laws prohibited using person's name or picture for advertising purposes without consent
  • 5.
    privacy primarily matterof civil law (tort law) criminal statutes protect privacy in some narrow circumstances
  • 6.
    Roberson v. RochesterFolding Box Co. (1902) lithographed picture of girl on boxes of flour she objected lower courts found right of privacy NY Court of Appeals disagreed 1903 -- NY legislature acted
  • 7.
    Four distinct formsof privacy invasion commercial appropriation of name or likeness [Right of Publicity] public disclosure of embarrassing private facts placing an individual in a false light intrusion upon physical seclusion
  • 8.
  • 9.
  • 10.
  • 11.
    appropriation or misappropriationcommercial use of a person's name or likeness without consent reason: individuals alone should have the right to control the marketing or exploitation of their own person
  • 12.
    Right of Publicityentertainers, sports figures, and other well-known personalities names or likenesses or character created used to promote a product or for other commercial gain includes "identity"
  • 13.
    Appropriation v. Rightof Publicity Appropriation individuals personal right to privacy Right of Publicity celebrities property right involving commercial value of celebrity identity
  • 14.
    commercial use exploitationdirectly for another's trade or self- enrichment purposes advertisements or promotions for products or services product endorsements
  • 15.
    appearance in anews report not a commercial use exception: Hugo Zacchini
  • 16.
  • 17.
    no First Amendmentprivilege when broadcast performer's entire act (narrow, rare and much criticized exception)
  • 18.
    many communications arehard to categorize public relations publications that include legitimate news or educational information
  • 19.
    SFSU IS GREAT!Most San Francisco State Students say they received an excellent education. Application deadlines are . . .
  • 20.
    BECA Faculty Top-Notch!Broadcast and Electronic Communication Arts students say that BECA faculty are among the best in the world.
  • 21.
    Buy the Book!Sight Sound Motion is the ultimate book on media aesthetics and is endorsed by San Francisco State students.
  • 22.
  • 23.
    Playgirl casestatute's (NY) language prohibited uses without consent "for purposes of trade" court said clear picture had been used for the "purpose of trade"
  • 24.
    biggest problem formagazines that publish fictional works
  • 25.
    what about thecover of a magazine or book? general rule: cover picture is safe if it is derived from the newsworthy or educational content within person needs to be subject of the content -- otherwise picture deemed to be for a purely, commercial, promotional purpose
  • 26.
    Incidental Uses distinctionalso made whether individual's identity is incidental to the commercial purpose or directly in support of it but beware: rarely is a person's appearance in a commercial passage purely incidental when in doubt -- do without (or get consent)
  • 27.
    Special Problem: Station Promotion news footage, not used in news, but in a promo spot verdict for broadcaster victim's appearance was merely incidental to commercial purpose of spot identity of the accident victim was immaterial
  • 28.
    individuals must bereadily identifiable in order to sue successfully for appropriation
  • 29.
    name or likenessbroad concept includes nicknames, voice or other mark of personal identity personal identity by whatever method of reference
  • 30.
    Here's Johnny PortableToilets, Inc. "the world's foremost commodian" "a celebrity has a protected pecuniary interest in the commercial exploitation of his identity . . . "
  • 31.
  • 32.
    what about look-alikes?imitation -- though the sincerest form of flattery -- usually not appropriation but if public is confused -- verdict for the celebrity other courts have found for the celebrity on theory of unfair competition under Lanham Act (false representation of association -- "likelihood of confusion") law unsettled -- no one rule
  • 33.
    what about peopleno longer living? some states -- claim survives California -- creates transferable property right in "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness" for 50 years, if such had commercial value at time of death
  • 34.
    can avoid allthese problems if get consent consent should be in writing even if initial use will not be commercial gratuitous consent may be withdrawn (not binding) only a knowing consent is a valid consent
  • 35.
  • 36.
    Disclosure of PrivateFacts public disclosure of embarrassing private facts that are not newsworthy and when such disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person runs counter to idea that media free to disseminate truthful information so this tort is quite narrow and plaintiff's verdicts infrequent
  • 37.
    Private Facts plaintiffmust prove information was private tax returns are privileged limited, selective prior disclosures will not necessarily diminish private nature of facts (may disclose, in confidence, to family, close friends, or an employer) events that occur in public view are almost always public
  • 38.
    "A Strange Kindof Love" photo of Pittsburgh Steelers fan with fly open court agreed magazine had deliberately exhibited the fan in an embarrassing manner but no recovery -- photo simply did not reveal anything private
  • 39.
    photo taken ata public event everyone present could see knowing or implied consent not a matter concerning a private fact
  • 40.
    however if embarrassmentinstantaneous and involuntary -- don't forfeit right of privacy just because at moment happened to be part of a public scene
  • 41.
    public records publicrecord privilege applies to all branches of government but not all documents or proceedings are public courts may seal documents
  • 42.
    other lawfully obtainedfacts may you keep your name private in some circumstances?
  • 43.
    Highly Offensive highlyoffensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities not a subjective test -- i.e., that the person was upset must clearly overstep the prevailing notions of decency
  • 44.
    Newsworthiness Defense doesthe public have a right to know these facts? difficult to draw line between newsworthy and not newsworthy
  • 45.
    California uses abalancing test: the social value of the facts disclosed v. the depth of the intrusion into private affairs other places -- ask jury to consider whether the disclosures are in line with customary news content
  • 46.
    hazy boundaries learnbasic rules and factual situations that signal danger unlike libel -- counterspeech, retraction nor correction will ease plaintiff's suffering
  • 47.
    lapse of timeRed Kimono case different result today?
  • 48.
    do rehabilitated criminalshave privacy claims regarding past life? general rule that recall of past news events is a legitimate public endeavor long-past private matters should not be published unless would be legitimate news today
  • 49.
    get consent don'tforget the ethical considerations public benefit v. private trauma
  • 50.
    False Light representationof an individual in a false and highly offensive manner before the public often accompanies claim of defamation aim is to compensate for personal embarrassment and anguish -- not damage to reputation available only to individuals
  • 51.
  • 52.
    distortion mismatching theaudio and video (pull visual element out of the file)
  • 53.
    Study shows . . . SFSU students more likely to Drop out
  • 54.
    embellishment false informationadded to journalistic accounts
  • 55.
    fictionalization use ofreal, identifiable characters in imaginary tales test: could a reasonable person reading your story believe the fictional character is in fact this particular real person? like libel, must show identification and publication
  • 56.
    however, in libel-- publication to one person is sufficient but in false light need dissemination to the general public actual malice required opinion protected some states don't recognize tort
  • 57.
    Intrusion intentional invasionof a person's physical seclusion or private affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person occurs in the information- gathering process if information published then invasion of privacy, etc.
  • 58.
  • 59.
    question: wasthe individual in a place where she could reasonably expect privacy? no expectation in public is in private residences, hospital rooms, ambulances, hotel rooms, private offices, dressing rooms, public toilet stalls
  • 60.
    what about thingsplaced in the trash? same standard of "highly offensive” public benefit v. individual privacy but news gathering not yet recognized as providing overriding public benefit
  • 61.
    use of subterfugesome cases have allowed subterfuge in getting consent risk we all take in dealing with others
  • 62.
    but recording andintercepting actions, conversations a different matter
  • 63.
    Public Places Jackiegot an injunction against Galella -- he had to stay 25 feet from Jackie and 30 feet from her children harassment -- criminal violation under New York law
  • 64.
    Intentional Infliction ofEmotional Distress Fraud Breach of Contract (newsworthiness might outweigh)
  • 65.
    Criminal Protections restrictionson disclosure hard to prevent media from disclosing what lawfully know may prevent govt employees/participants from talking
  • 66.
    restrictions on informationgathering electronic surveillance Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 anti-wiretap statute state laws

Editor's Notes

  • #17 Google image search: Zacchini Illustrated Story of Copyright Law
  • #24 http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.courier-journal.com/ali/images/aliface.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.courier-journal.com/ali/&h=342&w=297&sz=26&tbnid=v45WgGKIYyEJ:&tbnh=115&tbnw=99&hl=en&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMohammed%2BAli%26imgsz%3Dsmall%257Cmedium%257Clarge%257Cxlarge%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
  • #36 http://www.walnettosinc.com/images/three-stooges.jpg