 |
Sample Q - Privacy - Key |
| |
Sample Q - Privacy - Key |
The Deals filed suit claiming appropriation, publication of private facts and intrusion. Each of these claims must be addressed separately since the legal standards are different for each one.
Appropriation: The Deals will not be successful.
The appropriation claim would be based on two possible uses of the names or identifiable photos of the Deals: the broadcast of the "DONE DEAL" segment of "COP VIDEO," and the use of a ten-second clip from the segment in promotional spots for the show.
In order to successfully sue for appropriation the Deals would have to prove that the use of the Deals names and the images in which they are identifiable was a commercial use. They will be unable to meet this requirement since "COP VIDEO" falls into what Middleton calls "the First Amendment" defense (Middleton, p. 220), and the "newsworthiness" defense (Middleton, p. 222). . The segment does not include transactional messages (i.e. offers to buy or sell good or services) and the subject matter is newsworthy.
Because "COP VIDEO" is editorial speech, the promotional spot is protected as a "media promotion or incidental use (Middleton, p. 222-23)." In Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting (1986) the Oregon Supreme Court held that the use of clips from a news programming to promote informational programming is not a commercial use.
Publication of Private Facts: The Deals will not be successful.
In order to win a private facts suit in Oregon, the plaintiff must show "that the information "was either obtained or broadcast in a manner or for a purpose wrongful beyond the unconsented publication itself..." (Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting (1986). While it is clear that the Deals did not consent to the taping or presumably to the broadcast itself, the segment concerns matters of public interest (drug enforcement and police performance in the line of duty) and there is no evidence of any other motive for the broadcast.
Also, the Deals would have difficulty showing that private facts were broadcast. While the raid did take place in their home, information about the raid and the arrest would not be considered private facts.
Intrusion: The Deals will not be successful.
Magenis v. Fisher Broadcasting
In Oregon, to win an intrusion suit the plaintiff must show that physical intrusion, that is, the unauthorized or uninvited entrance into private space, took place and that the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
While the highly offensive standard is a jury question and it is possible that a jury would find for the Deals, Magenis v. Fisher Broadcasting, an Oregon Court of Appeals decision, is very similar to the facts presented here. Given that in Magenis the court indicates that the facts would not support a finding of highly offensive, it is not likely that the intrusion claim would be successful here.
