Mass Comm Law Exam 2: Privacy

By braggkv
  • 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

    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