Comm 307 Exam 2

--appropriation
-false light
-intrusion
-public discloure, publication of private facts

Use of persons name, likeness or identity for trade or adversting without consent for ones own gain, often called unfair competition

Publication of false, highly offensive (not necessarily defamotry) info about individual

intrusion into someone private space, or solitude information gathering tort (not publication), legal wrong is at time of intrusion

Publication of non newsworthy, privare facts about ant indvidual that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (true defamtion), outrage person decency

A tort or civil wrong, false statements that damage another individuals reputation, most common legal problem for mass media, includes libel (written) and slander (oral)

Something that anyone can see, public place, not all things in public are "open", foundation from 1970s with companies doing background checks (ex brandenberg and social media today)
EX: Barnhardt vs Paisano – Barnhardt sues because flashes when she is drunk, image appeas in easy riders, court favors barnhardt because she is in plainview,doesn’t need consent because in plainview
EX: Girls gone wild – drunk girls sign consent – is that reasonable expectation of privacy?
EX: Cape Publications vs Bridges – newsworthiness of something, women held hostage by ex husband and dragged out in her underwear, photos in newspaper, sues for intrusion and wants privacy, court favors her the first time then appealed and second time deemed newsworthy
EX:Deteresa vs ABC – reporter knocks on her door and records, she sues but in plainview so court sides with ABC reporter
EX: Solomon vs National Enquirer – naked person inside home, photos in national enquirer, sues, invasion of privacy, court favors magazine because in plainview contributes to anti paparazzi law and high tech camera limitations

Two cases that allow for past reputation to be forgotten
-Melvin vs Reid: new orleans prostitute and changed her life, fictional movie made about her past and she sues on public disclosure and wins b/c right to redeem image and gets $50,000
-Brisco vs Readers Digest 1971- public story about brisco past and now reformed, court claims magazine ridicules and humiliates his reputation, common law right to privacy and loss of self identity/violates right of privacy

Basics= fairness doctrine (personal attacks/editorial notify and gives chance to respond, until 1980s and dies out)
312 = Candidate Access Rule; broadcast license revoked if politician running within certain emount of days -- ex: carter mondale [cbs vs FCC] carter requests networks airtime to speak and stations say no because election isnt until 1980 and asked in nov. 1979, court favors FCC because other candidates are claiming they are in race, campaing begun, must have LEGIT justifications to deny politician airtime
pros- candidate gets opportunity to broadcast [republican theory]
cons-disrupts business of broadcasters [liberal theory]
315- equal opportunity/time rule; applies to legally qualified candidates, signed contract, state verified, must meet qualification, written on ballot...equal opportunity=is someone buys 30 mins airtime other candidate 30 min, no censorship (no liability for station)
EX: Becker vs FCC - anti abortion ad wanted to play after superbowl but denied because not every candidate has equal access, went to DC court of appeals (gov agency)

Private life and public representation viewed in circles
circle 1= public reputation (public records, ACLU membership, editorials)
circle 2=Secrets (4 toes, affairs, satanic cult)
circle 3= Social circles (alcoholics anonymous, classmates, family)
circle 4= spatial circles (toilet, park, classroom)
^ they all blend together, satanic cult is secret but it may be social circle -- the law must distinguish when they meet and what rights are protected

Changes at the turn 20th century:
new social order - industrial revolution, increased population/urbanization/blurring class lines/need protection of public reputation
new forms of personhood-want to make themselves socially mobile and create name for themselves
new media- camera invention, instantaneous images, sleezy journalism, paparazzi leads to celebs

New privacy law and article in harvard law review - camera threatens the right to be left alone, and held standard for privacy law- "gross and depraved imagination taking image and writing in tabloids" , Warren and Brandeis wrote article after warren and wife (higher class, model) made him look bad in paper
-similar to nicholas sarcossi (ex pres of france) biggest enemy of internet, wife model posted and frustrated

Terms of service, continually changing, if email and take down regimes, they arent liable if dont take down
facebook privacy rights

Building a right to privacy from media
-Sanders vs ABC [abc went undercover to bust telephone pyshic (sanders) and goes to ABC and court protects sanders because harm to reputation
-VS vs Jewish Hospital of St louis - jewish couple fertilization, goes to party, photos taken and posted and synagogue ex communicates, they sue, court favors
-Multimedia WMAZ INC vs Kubach; HIV positive on TV bad blurring, he sues
^ court sides with private individual for privacy rights
online cases are different -
EX: JS ex rel HS vs Bethlehem Area school district websites - first time seen as public forum and student wasnt protected

Used as a weapon, chilling effect, very expensive to get lawyer, silences people