-
Roberson v Rochester Folding Box Co.
Motivated NY legislators to pass the FIRST privacy statute -
Sidis v F&R Pub. Co.
The court determined that Sidis was still newsworthy after many years and had little or no claim to privacy -
*Time v Hill
*KEY case: USSC applied NYT v Sullivan actual malice standard to the false-light privacy tort -
Paulsen v Personality Posters
An NY court ruled that the newsworthiness of an event may override a claim of appropriation- the poster presented political commentary on a mock presidential campaign -
Williams v KCMO
A Missouri court declared that the newsworthiness of an event outweighed any privacy conerns in fast breaking events -
Briscoe v Reader's Digest
A federal district court ruled that RD had reported the info accurately and Briscoe was still newsworthy -
Galella v Onassis
1972-1982
A federal district court ruled that overzealous members of the media can be restrained and must be respectful of moments of private intimacy -
Cantrell v Forest City Publishing
USSC declared that falsifying quotes constitutes actual malice and fictionalization -
Florida Pub. Co. v Fletcher
FL court determined that the doctrine of custom and usage protected the media because fire authorities had invited them onto the property -
Zacchini v Scripps-Howard
USSC ruled that the media must make sure that permission is acquired in commercial situations -
Le Mistral v CBS
An NY court ruled that the newsworthiness of an event does not necessarily outweigh the rights of a private company to conduct business uninterrupted -
Uhl v CBS
A federal district court ruled that a hunter shooting birds on the ground is highly offensive to the average person in western Pennsylvania -
Olivia N. v NBC
A CA court ruled that the media had not "incited" the harmful action -
Walt Disney v Shannon
A GA court ruled Walt Disney could not be sued for emotional distress -
Hyde v City of Columbia
A Missouri court ruled that a newspaper and the city could be sued for emotional distress -
Cape Pub. v Bridges
An appellate judge ruled that the newsworthiness of the situation outweighed any privacy claim -
Cher v Forum
An NY court ruled that a magazine must secure permission to use a celebrity's name in an endorsement -
Carson v Here's Johnny
A federal district court ruled that in situations where a person is "known" by a name or slogan, there is a need to secure permission before engaging in a commercial transaction -
Shields v Gross
An NY court declared that a signed model release is a very strong defense regardless of the time element- a parent's consent is BINDING for a minor -
Sipple v Chronicle Pub.
A CA appellate court ruled that the newsworthiness of the event outweighed Sipple's privacy claims -
Hustler Magazine v Falwell
USSC held that a person cannot sue for emotional distress when there has been no invasion of privacy or defamation -
Midler v Ford
A CA court ruled that "sound-alikes" need to be legally cleared before undergoing a commercial venture -
Braun v Soldier of Fortune
A court held the magazine liable for the harmful effect of the ad. Court ruled that the ad had subjected the public to a "clearly identifiable, reasonable risk of harm." -
Wilson v Layne
Ruling: Media ride-alongs violate the 4th Amendment
The marshals were given immunity because this principle of law was not established at the time of this ride-along. -
Bartnicki v Vopper
USSC ruled for Vopper; ruled that the information was obtained legally and was of public concern