Privacy Torts and Life Story Rights

From Media & Entertainment Law Wypadkis

False Light

• Elements
  • Creation of a false light or false impression
    • Must show the information or image, as presented by defendant, created a false impression or put the plaintiff in false light in the eyes of the public, i.e. the information or image may be true but it creates a false impression
  • Of the Plaintiff
    • Plaintiff must be identifiable by a large group, not just the people that know him.
  • That would offend a reasonable person
    • This is a question fact for the fact finder. Must answer the question "Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances be highly offended by the impression created."
      • Normally involves impression of sexual or moral misconduct or misidentifying the responsible party in an accident or crime.
  • In publicity presented to the public
    • The information must be delivered to a large enough group to create and impression in the mind of the public.
  • By the Defendant
  • With malice or reckless disregard for the truth by the defendant
    • But not all states require actual malice
• Defenses
  • Failure by the plaintiff to prove all elements
  • Waiver or consent
  • Fair comment

False Light- IS a publication of a matter about the P, without consent, casting P in a false light, which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Elements- 1) Publication about P by D 2) Malice 3) Puts P in false light; 4) Highly offensive to a reasonable person. Doesn’t harm someone’s reputation (unlike defamation). If someone tells you that you won the medal of honor. HMP- Public; T/F- F; Highly Offensive- Y; Intent- Y + Malice; Post-Mortem- N 1st Am. Defense- There is a high burden on the P to overcome the freedom of the press. Is the newsworthy value & interest of the story stale and facts knowingly false?

Intrusion into private place (invasion of privacy)

• Intentional
• intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter
• In a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Disclosure (Publication of Private Facts)

• Disclosure to the public
  • Or substantially certain that it will be disclosed to the public
• Of a privet act
  • The information is not of legitimate concern to the public i.e. non newsworthy.
  • Acts done in public can't meet this requirement
• That is true
• Of and concerning the Plaintiff
• Not sure if it can be brought up post-mortem
• Plaintiff is permitted to recover damages for injuries that normally result from such an invasion of privacy
  • Injury to feelings or sensibilities
  • Past and future humiliation
  • Embarrassment
  • Depression and withdrawal form the society
  • Medical or psychiatric expenses
  • Punitive damages if D acted with hatred, ill will or spite

Intrusion- The tort of intrusion protects against an intentional substantial intrusion upon the P’s solitude or seclusion, or her private affairs or concerns. It encompasses physical intrusion into the home, hospital room or other place the privacy of which is legally recognized, as well as unwarranted sensory intrusions such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, and visual or photographic spying. The only IOP tort that does not involve publication. Damages must be from the intrusion itself and not from the publication of that invasion. Elements- (1) Intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter. Plaintiff must show the D penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, or obtained unwanted access to data about, the P. Did the P have an objectively reasonable expectation of seclusion or solitude in the place, conversation or data source? (2) In a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. Factors include its degree and setting and the intruder's motives and objectives. Damages- A split of authority exists aw to whether injuries suffered as a result of the publication of the material obtained via the intrusion is recoverable through the tort of intrusion. Some jurisdictions permit the includion of harm from the public dissemination of the improperly obtained information. Defenses- 1st Amendment Defense- The mere fact the intruder was in pursuit of a “story” does not justify an otherwise offensive intrusion. Routine reporting techniques such as asking questions of people with information including those with confidential or restricted information could rarely, if ever, be deemed an actionable intrusion. At the other extreme, violation of well established legal areas of physical or sensory privacy-trespass into a home or tapping a personal telephone line, for example-could rarely, if ever, be justified by a reporter's need to get the story. Reason for Lower Threshold- The intrusion tort, unlike that for publication of private facts, does not subject the press to liability for the contents of its publications. HMP- N/A; T/F- N/A; Highly Offensive- Y; Intent- Y; Post-Mortem- N Defense- Consent- Whether consent can be implied from the activities of those involved depends on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have adopted the view that property owners impliedly consent to the presence of the news media during a newsworthy event.

Outrage (IIED)- HMP N/A; T/F- N/A; Highly Offensive- Y; Intent- Y; Post-Mortem- N

C: Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.- Court concludes summary judgment was proper as to plaintiffs' cause of action for publication of private facts, but not as to their cause of action for intrusion. Ps had a car accident and were helicoptered out. A camera crew taped the whole rescue operation. The accident left Ruth a paraplegic. Court said that the footage was of legitimate public concern as a matter of law. She was identified in the footage, As broadcast, the segment included neither Ruth's full name nor direct display of her face. She was nonetheless arguably identifiable by her first name (used in recorded dialogue), her voice, her general appearance and the recounted circumstances of the accident. On the intrusion cause of action, the courts said that it isn’t the custom or habit for journalists to join rescue missions. Also those conversations were somewhat private, but this is a triable issue. Whether the intrusion was beyond a reasonable person standard is also a triable issue. Distinction- Public interest killed disclosure; but Invasion is still there because there are other ways to get news. Dissent- Standard is “highly offensive” and they don’t believe the jury could have reached such a verdict.