In this instance there is a bit of grey area. The woman was in public when this happened so it is unclear if she can bring an invasion of privacy or libel lawsuit against the newspaper for printing this picture.
There would not be much of a case for libel. Libel is defined as, “a false or malicious statement published in mainstream media.” A picture is being printed here not a statement. So the woman would not have much of a case if she pursued legal action with a libel case.
This woman could sue and most likely win if she sued for invasion of privacy. There are a few exceptions to invasion of privacy and this picture falls under one of them. Invasion of privacy is defined as, “the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity intruded.” Using this definition the newspaper didn’t violate this woman’s rights. There are exceptions to the rule. “Public personages are not protected in most situations since they have placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities are considered newsworthy. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: 1)intrusion into one’s solitude or into one’s personal affairs; 2)public disclosure of embarrassing private information; 3)publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; 4)appropriation of one’s name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.” Number 2 is where the newspaper would run into trouble when this matter was brought to court. Printing this picture could easily be considered embarrassing information. This woman could win this case suing for invasion of privacy not libel.
No comments:
Post a Comment