Can a celebrity sue someone who takes obnoxious pictures/videos of him in public and uploads onto internet...
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
Suppose a celebrity digs his nose or scratches his private part because of sudden itch or performs some unsightly act in public. Someone takes his picture/video and uploads onto internet without his permission. The celebrity is shamed in public. By depicting the celebrity in an unflattering light, his value as a celebrity is diminished.
Can the celebrity sue for damages since the pictures/video were taken without his permission? His privacy has also been violated.
Assume celebrity is American.
privacy photography right-of-publicity
asked Nov 21 at 8:14
user768421
20326
|
show 10 more comments
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
Suppose a celebrity digs his nose or scratches his private part because of sudden itch or performs some unsightly act in public. Someone takes his picture/video and uploads onto internet without his permission. The celebrity is shamed in public. By depicting the celebrity in an unflattering light, his value as a celebrity is diminished.
Can the celebrity sue for damages since the pictures/video were taken without his permission? His privacy has also been violated.
Assume celebrity is American.
privacy photography right-of-publicity
asked Nov 21 at 8:14
user768421
20326
8
I suppose you'd have to specify a location, but I would think not seeing how many such photos are seen in tabloid newspapers...
– colmde
Nov 21 at 8:25
1
Do you mean "in public" as in a public place or "in public" as in their public facing function. There is a difference between sitting in a public cafe with a friend and walking over the red carpet at the premiere of your newest movie.
– Darkwing
Nov 21 at 14:46
7
That depends on the jurisdiction. In some countries there is a kind of property right of images of yourself. See for example de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland) for the situation in Germany. Typically celebrities have less protection though and also if the person is the main target of the picture.
– Trilarion
Nov 21 at 15:35
11
"Can the celebrity sue for damages" Yes- all they need is a lawyer who will take their money and start the proceedings. "Can the celebrity win" Is the question that everyone is answering.
– UKMonkey
Nov 21 at 15:55
1
Hello and welcome to the site. Please edit this to specify a jurisdiction.
– curiousdannii
Nov 22 at 5:49
|
show 10 more comments
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
Suppose a celebrity digs his nose or scratches his private part because of sudden itch or performs some unsightly act in public. Someone takes his picture/video and uploads onto internet without his permission. The celebrity is shamed in public. By depicting the celebrity in an unflattering light, his value as a celebrity is diminished.
Can the celebrity sue for damages since the pictures/video were taken without his permission? His privacy has also been violated.
Assume celebrity is American.
privacy photography right-of-publicity
asked Nov 21 at 8:14
user768421
20326
Suppose a celebrity digs his nose or scratches his private part because of sudden itch or performs some unsightly act in public. Someone takes his picture/video and uploads onto internet without his permission. The celebrity is shamed in public. By depicting the celebrity in an unflattering light, his value as a celebrity is diminished.
Can the celebrity sue for damages since the pictures/video were taken without his permission? His privacy has also been violated.
Assume celebrity is American.
privacy photography right-of-publicity
privacy photography right-of-publicity
asked Nov 21 at 8:14
user768421
20326
asked Nov 21 at 8:14
user768421
20326
edited Nov 22 at 6:01
asked Nov 21 at 8:14
user768421
20326
asked Nov 21 at 8:14
user768421
20326
asked Nov 21 at 8:14
user768421
20326
20326
8
I suppose you'd have to specify a location, but I would think not seeing how many such photos are seen in tabloid newspapers...
– colmde
Nov 21 at 8:25
1
Do you mean "in public" as in a public place or "in public" as in their public facing function. There is a difference between sitting in a public cafe with a friend and walking over the red carpet at the premiere of your newest movie.
– Darkwing
Nov 21 at 14:46
7
That depends on the jurisdiction. In some countries there is a kind of property right of images of yourself. See for example de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland) for the situation in Germany. Typically celebrities have less protection though and also if the person is the main target of the picture.
– Trilarion
Nov 21 at 15:35
11
"Can the celebrity sue for damages" Yes- all they need is a lawyer who will take their money and start the proceedings. "Can the celebrity win" Is the question that everyone is answering.
– UKMonkey
Nov 21 at 15:55
1
Hello and welcome to the site. Please edit this to specify a jurisdiction.
– curiousdannii
Nov 22 at 5:49
|
show 10 more comments
8
I suppose you'd have to specify a location, but I would think not seeing how many such photos are seen in tabloid newspapers...
– colmde
Nov 21 at 8:25
1
Do you mean "in public" as in a public place or "in public" as in their public facing function. There is a difference between sitting in a public cafe with a friend and walking over the red carpet at the premiere of your newest movie.
– Darkwing
Nov 21 at 14:46
7
That depends on the jurisdiction. In some countries there is a kind of property right of images of yourself. See for example de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland) for the situation in Germany. Typically celebrities have less protection though and also if the person is the main target of the picture.
– Trilarion
Nov 21 at 15:35
11
"Can the celebrity sue for damages" Yes- all they need is a lawyer who will take their money and start the proceedings. "Can the celebrity win" Is the question that everyone is answering.
– UKMonkey
Nov 21 at 15:55
1
Hello and welcome to the site. Please edit this to specify a jurisdiction.
– curiousdannii
Nov 22 at 5:49
8
8
I suppose you'd have to specify a location, but I would think not seeing how many such photos are seen in tabloid newspapers...
– colmde
Nov 21 at 8:25
I suppose you'd have to specify a location, but I would think not seeing how many such photos are seen in tabloid newspapers...
– colmde
Nov 21 at 8:25
1
1
Do you mean "in public" as in a public place or "in public" as in their public facing function. There is a difference between sitting in a public cafe with a friend and walking over the red carpet at the premiere of your newest movie.
– Darkwing
Nov 21 at 14:46
Do you mean "in public" as in a public place or "in public" as in their public facing function. There is a difference between sitting in a public cafe with a friend and walking over the red carpet at the premiere of your newest movie.
– Darkwing
Nov 21 at 14:46
7
7
That depends on the jurisdiction. In some countries there is a kind of property right of images of yourself. See for example de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland) for the situation in Germany. Typically celebrities have less protection though and also if the person is the main target of the picture.
– Trilarion
Nov 21 at 15:35
That depends on the jurisdiction. In some countries there is a kind of property right of images of yourself. See for example de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland) for the situation in Germany. Typically celebrities have less protection though and also if the person is the main target of the picture.
– Trilarion
Nov 21 at 15:35
11
11
"Can the celebrity sue for damages" Yes- all they need is a lawyer who will take their money and start the proceedings. "Can the celebrity win" Is the question that everyone is answering.
– UKMonkey
Nov 21 at 15:55
"Can the celebrity sue for damages" Yes- all they need is a lawyer who will take their money and start the proceedings. "Can the celebrity win" Is the question that everyone is answering.
– UKMonkey
Nov 21 at 15:55
1
1
Hello and welcome to the site. Please edit this to specify a jurisdiction.
– curiousdannii
Nov 22 at 5:49
Hello and welcome to the site. Please edit this to specify a jurisdiction.
– curiousdannii
Nov 22 at 5:49
|
show 10 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
As per this question & answer, in the US there is no expectation of privacy in public places (not to be confused with private places where public is allowed e.g. supermarkets). Photos taken in public belong to the photo taker and he/she is free to use them in whatever way. No privacy is violated here.
The fact that the person whose photo was taken was a celebrity does not change anything. It would have been completely their fault to expect privacy in a public place and behave rashly.
edited Nov 21 at 19:09
ANeves
1033
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
Greendrake
2,3721720
3
@user768421 taking photos will be allowed like in public unless expressly prohibited by the place owner.
– Greendrake
Nov 21 at 8:29
5
I have proposed an edit to make the answer scoped to the US. In other countries, there is expectation of privacy. See the comment from Trilarion on the question: law.stackexchange.com/questions/33692/…
– ANeves
Nov 21 at 16:42
2
@user768421 Restaurants count as "in public" for these purposes, unless the celebrity is at a private event in the restaurant where public access is restricted. If you are in a place that is open to the public (such as a restaurant), then you are in public.
– only_pro
Nov 21 at 17:32
6
The last paragraph is not correct in many US jurisdictions. For example, the fact that the person is a celebrity matters to the injury prong of the four step test to determine if the use violates California's common law right of publicity. The first paragraph is also misleading because it doesn't point out that commercial use is restricted in many jurisdictions by statute.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:23
2
@DPenner1 From here: "Generally, a model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses the product, service, or organization." "Whatever way" did not mean to include deceiving anyone into thinking that the way was endorsed by the person on the photo.
– Greendrake
Nov 22 at 18:26
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
If you're talking about the United States, the celebrity will lose this case:
- Being mildly embarrassed does not give rise to damages
- The First Amendment allows us to gather and disseminate information, including photographic information;
- The right to privacy does not cover the things you do in public, in front of cameras.
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
bdb484
10.6k11539
1
To the best of my knowledge, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against government reprisals for the content of speech, not private reprisals, such as civil lawsuits. Or social media shaming mobs. Am I mistaken?
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:01
1
@JohnBollinger — you are mistaken. A lawsuit is still carried out under the laws of the state or the country, laws which must respect freedom of speech, religion, and so on. I cannot (successfully) sue you for being Jewish or for not being Jewish, for voting Republican or voting Democrat. Purely private actions — "social media shaming", boycotts — have no such limits.
– Malvolio
Nov 21 at 16:10
2
How, then, is defamation law possible? I think the correct analysis has to be about whether there are any actionable damages, not about whether any such damages arose from speech.
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:14
7
@JohnBollinger Because defamation is when you intentionally cause harm through speech, and lie to do it. It's an extension of the "fire in the theater" logic.
– Nic Hartley
Nov 21 at 17:25
1
@NicHartley The "fire in a theater" logic is that you're not making an argument or conveying information for people to consider but instead provoking an immediate reaction with no opportunity for thought or discussion. Defamation is in no way an extension of that logic because defamation often does consist of advancing arguments and claims for deliberate, rational consideration.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:27
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
Just because a person expects to lose a case may not stop them vexatiously suing you as a discouragement / punishment - if they can afford a big legal bill and you can't, just the threat of a big court case can be too much of a risk for a lot of people.
The UK courts in particular have been used for libel tourism as documented in Private Eye magazine - and they know plenty about libel!
answered Nov 21 at 18:02
John U
1492
add a comment |
up vote
-3
down vote
Yes.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.
There is no expectation that they will succeed at their suit, it could be a completely frivolous waste of time and money.
answered Nov 21 at 19:35
Miles Prower
271
9
Welcome to StackExchange. You could cut and paste this answer to almost any legal question, and it wouldn't be wrong. But what makes a good answer here is more specificity, i.e. Things that pertain to this situation in particular.
– Harper
Nov 21 at 21:32
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
As per this question & answer, in the US there is no expectation of privacy in public places (not to be confused with private places where public is allowed e.g. supermarkets). Photos taken in public belong to the photo taker and he/she is free to use them in whatever way. No privacy is violated here.
The fact that the person whose photo was taken was a celebrity does not change anything. It would have been completely their fault to expect privacy in a public place and behave rashly.
edited Nov 21 at 19:09
ANeves
1033
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
Greendrake
2,3721720
3
@user768421 taking photos will be allowed like in public unless expressly prohibited by the place owner.
– Greendrake
Nov 21 at 8:29
5
I have proposed an edit to make the answer scoped to the US. In other countries, there is expectation of privacy. See the comment from Trilarion on the question: law.stackexchange.com/questions/33692/…
– ANeves
Nov 21 at 16:42
2
@user768421 Restaurants count as "in public" for these purposes, unless the celebrity is at a private event in the restaurant where public access is restricted. If you are in a place that is open to the public (such as a restaurant), then you are in public.
– only_pro
Nov 21 at 17:32
6
The last paragraph is not correct in many US jurisdictions. For example, the fact that the person is a celebrity matters to the injury prong of the four step test to determine if the use violates California's common law right of publicity. The first paragraph is also misleading because it doesn't point out that commercial use is restricted in many jurisdictions by statute.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:23
2
@DPenner1 From here: "Generally, a model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses the product, service, or organization." "Whatever way" did not mean to include deceiving anyone into thinking that the way was endorsed by the person on the photo.
– Greendrake
Nov 22 at 18:26
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
As per this question & answer, in the US there is no expectation of privacy in public places (not to be confused with private places where public is allowed e.g. supermarkets). Photos taken in public belong to the photo taker and he/she is free to use them in whatever way. No privacy is violated here.
The fact that the person whose photo was taken was a celebrity does not change anything. It would have been completely their fault to expect privacy in a public place and behave rashly.
edited Nov 21 at 19:09
ANeves
1033
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
Greendrake
2,3721720
3
@user768421 taking photos will be allowed like in public unless expressly prohibited by the place owner.
– Greendrake
Nov 21 at 8:29
5
I have proposed an edit to make the answer scoped to the US. In other countries, there is expectation of privacy. See the comment from Trilarion on the question: law.stackexchange.com/questions/33692/…
– ANeves
Nov 21 at 16:42
2
@user768421 Restaurants count as "in public" for these purposes, unless the celebrity is at a private event in the restaurant where public access is restricted. If you are in a place that is open to the public (such as a restaurant), then you are in public.
– only_pro
Nov 21 at 17:32
6
The last paragraph is not correct in many US jurisdictions. For example, the fact that the person is a celebrity matters to the injury prong of the four step test to determine if the use violates California's common law right of publicity. The first paragraph is also misleading because it doesn't point out that commercial use is restricted in many jurisdictions by statute.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:23
2
@DPenner1 From here: "Generally, a model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses the product, service, or organization." "Whatever way" did not mean to include deceiving anyone into thinking that the way was endorsed by the person on the photo.
– Greendrake
Nov 22 at 18:26
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
As per this question & answer, in the US there is no expectation of privacy in public places (not to be confused with private places where public is allowed e.g. supermarkets). Photos taken in public belong to the photo taker and he/she is free to use them in whatever way. No privacy is violated here.
The fact that the person whose photo was taken was a celebrity does not change anything. It would have been completely their fault to expect privacy in a public place and behave rashly.
edited Nov 21 at 19:09
ANeves
1033
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
Greendrake
2,3721720
As per this question & answer, in the US there is no expectation of privacy in public places (not to be confused with private places where public is allowed e.g. supermarkets). Photos taken in public belong to the photo taker and he/she is free to use them in whatever way. No privacy is violated here.
The fact that the person whose photo was taken was a celebrity does not change anything. It would have been completely their fault to expect privacy in a public place and behave rashly.
edited Nov 21 at 19:09
ANeves
1033
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
Greendrake
2,3721720
edited Nov 21 at 19:09
ANeves
1033
edited Nov 21 at 19:09
ANeves
1033
edited Nov 21 at 19:09
ANeves
1033
1033
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
Greendrake
2,3721720
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
Greendrake
2,3721720
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
Greendrake
2,3721720
2,3721720
3
@user768421 taking photos will be allowed like in public unless expressly prohibited by the place owner.
– Greendrake
Nov 21 at 8:29
5
I have proposed an edit to make the answer scoped to the US. In other countries, there is expectation of privacy. See the comment from Trilarion on the question: law.stackexchange.com/questions/33692/…
– ANeves
Nov 21 at 16:42
2
@user768421 Restaurants count as "in public" for these purposes, unless the celebrity is at a private event in the restaurant where public access is restricted. If you are in a place that is open to the public (such as a restaurant), then you are in public.
– only_pro
Nov 21 at 17:32
6
The last paragraph is not correct in many US jurisdictions. For example, the fact that the person is a celebrity matters to the injury prong of the four step test to determine if the use violates California's common law right of publicity. The first paragraph is also misleading because it doesn't point out that commercial use is restricted in many jurisdictions by statute.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:23
2
@DPenner1 From here: "Generally, a model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses the product, service, or organization." "Whatever way" did not mean to include deceiving anyone into thinking that the way was endorsed by the person on the photo.
– Greendrake
Nov 22 at 18:26
|
show 3 more comments
3
@user768421 taking photos will be allowed like in public unless expressly prohibited by the place owner.
– Greendrake
Nov 21 at 8:29
5
I have proposed an edit to make the answer scoped to the US. In other countries, there is expectation of privacy. See the comment from Trilarion on the question: law.stackexchange.com/questions/33692/…
– ANeves
Nov 21 at 16:42
2
@user768421 Restaurants count as "in public" for these purposes, unless the celebrity is at a private event in the restaurant where public access is restricted. If you are in a place that is open to the public (such as a restaurant), then you are in public.
– only_pro
Nov 21 at 17:32
6
The last paragraph is not correct in many US jurisdictions. For example, the fact that the person is a celebrity matters to the injury prong of the four step test to determine if the use violates California's common law right of publicity. The first paragraph is also misleading because it doesn't point out that commercial use is restricted in many jurisdictions by statute.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:23
2
@DPenner1 From here: "Generally, a model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses the product, service, or organization." "Whatever way" did not mean to include deceiving anyone into thinking that the way was endorsed by the person on the photo.
– Greendrake
Nov 22 at 18:26
3
3
@user768421 taking photos will be allowed like in public unless expressly prohibited by the place owner.
– Greendrake
Nov 21 at 8:29
@user768421 taking photos will be allowed like in public unless expressly prohibited by the place owner.
– Greendrake
Nov 21 at 8:29
5
5
I have proposed an edit to make the answer scoped to the US. In other countries, there is expectation of privacy. See the comment from Trilarion on the question: law.stackexchange.com/questions/33692/…
– ANeves
Nov 21 at 16:42
I have proposed an edit to make the answer scoped to the US. In other countries, there is expectation of privacy. See the comment from Trilarion on the question: law.stackexchange.com/questions/33692/…
– ANeves
Nov 21 at 16:42
2
2
@user768421 Restaurants count as "in public" for these purposes, unless the celebrity is at a private event in the restaurant where public access is restricted. If you are in a place that is open to the public (such as a restaurant), then you are in public.
– only_pro
Nov 21 at 17:32
@user768421 Restaurants count as "in public" for these purposes, unless the celebrity is at a private event in the restaurant where public access is restricted. If you are in a place that is open to the public (such as a restaurant), then you are in public.
– only_pro
Nov 21 at 17:32
6
6
The last paragraph is not correct in many US jurisdictions. For example, the fact that the person is a celebrity matters to the injury prong of the four step test to determine if the use violates California's common law right of publicity. The first paragraph is also misleading because it doesn't point out that commercial use is restricted in many jurisdictions by statute.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:23
The last paragraph is not correct in many US jurisdictions. For example, the fact that the person is a celebrity matters to the injury prong of the four step test to determine if the use violates California's common law right of publicity. The first paragraph is also misleading because it doesn't point out that commercial use is restricted in many jurisdictions by statute.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:23
2
2
@DPenner1 From here: "Generally, a model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses the product, service, or organization." "Whatever way" did not mean to include deceiving anyone into thinking that the way was endorsed by the person on the photo.
– Greendrake
Nov 22 at 18:26
@DPenner1 From here: "Generally, a model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses the product, service, or organization." "Whatever way" did not mean to include deceiving anyone into thinking that the way was endorsed by the person on the photo.
– Greendrake
Nov 22 at 18:26
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
If you're talking about the United States, the celebrity will lose this case:
- Being mildly embarrassed does not give rise to damages
- The First Amendment allows us to gather and disseminate information, including photographic information;
- The right to privacy does not cover the things you do in public, in front of cameras.
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
bdb484
10.6k11539
1
To the best of my knowledge, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against government reprisals for the content of speech, not private reprisals, such as civil lawsuits. Or social media shaming mobs. Am I mistaken?
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:01
1
@JohnBollinger — you are mistaken. A lawsuit is still carried out under the laws of the state or the country, laws which must respect freedom of speech, religion, and so on. I cannot (successfully) sue you for being Jewish or for not being Jewish, for voting Republican or voting Democrat. Purely private actions — "social media shaming", boycotts — have no such limits.
– Malvolio
Nov 21 at 16:10
2
How, then, is defamation law possible? I think the correct analysis has to be about whether there are any actionable damages, not about whether any such damages arose from speech.
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:14
7
@JohnBollinger Because defamation is when you intentionally cause harm through speech, and lie to do it. It's an extension of the "fire in the theater" logic.
– Nic Hartley
Nov 21 at 17:25
1
@NicHartley The "fire in a theater" logic is that you're not making an argument or conveying information for people to consider but instead provoking an immediate reaction with no opportunity for thought or discussion. Defamation is in no way an extension of that logic because defamation often does consist of advancing arguments and claims for deliberate, rational consideration.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:27
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
If you're talking about the United States, the celebrity will lose this case:
- Being mildly embarrassed does not give rise to damages
- The First Amendment allows us to gather and disseminate information, including photographic information;
- The right to privacy does not cover the things you do in public, in front of cameras.
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
bdb484
10.6k11539
1
To the best of my knowledge, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against government reprisals for the content of speech, not private reprisals, such as civil lawsuits. Or social media shaming mobs. Am I mistaken?
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:01
1
@JohnBollinger — you are mistaken. A lawsuit is still carried out under the laws of the state or the country, laws which must respect freedom of speech, religion, and so on. I cannot (successfully) sue you for being Jewish or for not being Jewish, for voting Republican or voting Democrat. Purely private actions — "social media shaming", boycotts — have no such limits.
– Malvolio
Nov 21 at 16:10
2
How, then, is defamation law possible? I think the correct analysis has to be about whether there are any actionable damages, not about whether any such damages arose from speech.
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:14
7
@JohnBollinger Because defamation is when you intentionally cause harm through speech, and lie to do it. It's an extension of the "fire in the theater" logic.
– Nic Hartley
Nov 21 at 17:25
1
@NicHartley The "fire in a theater" logic is that you're not making an argument or conveying information for people to consider but instead provoking an immediate reaction with no opportunity for thought or discussion. Defamation is in no way an extension of that logic because defamation often does consist of advancing arguments and claims for deliberate, rational consideration.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:27
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
If you're talking about the United States, the celebrity will lose this case:
- Being mildly embarrassed does not give rise to damages
- The First Amendment allows us to gather and disseminate information, including photographic information;
- The right to privacy does not cover the things you do in public, in front of cameras.
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
bdb484
10.6k11539
If you're talking about the United States, the celebrity will lose this case:
- Being mildly embarrassed does not give rise to damages
- The First Amendment allows us to gather and disseminate information, including photographic information;
- The right to privacy does not cover the things you do in public, in front of cameras.
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
bdb484
10.6k11539
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
bdb484
10.6k11539
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
bdb484
10.6k11539
answered Nov 21 at 8:25
bdb484
10.6k11539
10.6k11539
1
To the best of my knowledge, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against government reprisals for the content of speech, not private reprisals, such as civil lawsuits. Or social media shaming mobs. Am I mistaken?
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:01
1
@JohnBollinger — you are mistaken. A lawsuit is still carried out under the laws of the state or the country, laws which must respect freedom of speech, religion, and so on. I cannot (successfully) sue you for being Jewish or for not being Jewish, for voting Republican or voting Democrat. Purely private actions — "social media shaming", boycotts — have no such limits.
– Malvolio
Nov 21 at 16:10
2
How, then, is defamation law possible? I think the correct analysis has to be about whether there are any actionable damages, not about whether any such damages arose from speech.
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:14
7
@JohnBollinger Because defamation is when you intentionally cause harm through speech, and lie to do it. It's an extension of the "fire in the theater" logic.
– Nic Hartley
Nov 21 at 17:25
1
@NicHartley The "fire in a theater" logic is that you're not making an argument or conveying information for people to consider but instead provoking an immediate reaction with no opportunity for thought or discussion. Defamation is in no way an extension of that logic because defamation often does consist of advancing arguments and claims for deliberate, rational consideration.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:27
|
show 7 more comments
1
To the best of my knowledge, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against government reprisals for the content of speech, not private reprisals, such as civil lawsuits. Or social media shaming mobs. Am I mistaken?
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:01
1
@JohnBollinger — you are mistaken. A lawsuit is still carried out under the laws of the state or the country, laws which must respect freedom of speech, religion, and so on. I cannot (successfully) sue you for being Jewish or for not being Jewish, for voting Republican or voting Democrat. Purely private actions — "social media shaming", boycotts — have no such limits.
– Malvolio
Nov 21 at 16:10
2
How, then, is defamation law possible? I think the correct analysis has to be about whether there are any actionable damages, not about whether any such damages arose from speech.
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:14
7
@JohnBollinger Because defamation is when you intentionally cause harm through speech, and lie to do it. It's an extension of the "fire in the theater" logic.
– Nic Hartley
Nov 21 at 17:25
1
@NicHartley The "fire in a theater" logic is that you're not making an argument or conveying information for people to consider but instead provoking an immediate reaction with no opportunity for thought or discussion. Defamation is in no way an extension of that logic because defamation often does consist of advancing arguments and claims for deliberate, rational consideration.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:27
1
1
To the best of my knowledge, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against government reprisals for the content of speech, not private reprisals, such as civil lawsuits. Or social media shaming mobs. Am I mistaken?
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:01
To the best of my knowledge, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against government reprisals for the content of speech, not private reprisals, such as civil lawsuits. Or social media shaming mobs. Am I mistaken?
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:01
1
1
@JohnBollinger — you are mistaken. A lawsuit is still carried out under the laws of the state or the country, laws which must respect freedom of speech, religion, and so on. I cannot (successfully) sue you for being Jewish or for not being Jewish, for voting Republican or voting Democrat. Purely private actions — "social media shaming", boycotts — have no such limits.
– Malvolio
Nov 21 at 16:10
@JohnBollinger — you are mistaken. A lawsuit is still carried out under the laws of the state or the country, laws which must respect freedom of speech, religion, and so on. I cannot (successfully) sue you for being Jewish or for not being Jewish, for voting Republican or voting Democrat. Purely private actions — "social media shaming", boycotts — have no such limits.
– Malvolio
Nov 21 at 16:10
2
2
How, then, is defamation law possible? I think the correct analysis has to be about whether there are any actionable damages, not about whether any such damages arose from speech.
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:14
How, then, is defamation law possible? I think the correct analysis has to be about whether there are any actionable damages, not about whether any such damages arose from speech.
– John Bollinger
Nov 21 at 16:14
7
7
@JohnBollinger Because defamation is when you intentionally cause harm through speech, and lie to do it. It's an extension of the "fire in the theater" logic.
– Nic Hartley
Nov 21 at 17:25
@JohnBollinger Because defamation is when you intentionally cause harm through speech, and lie to do it. It's an extension of the "fire in the theater" logic.
– Nic Hartley
Nov 21 at 17:25
1
1
@NicHartley The "fire in a theater" logic is that you're not making an argument or conveying information for people to consider but instead provoking an immediate reaction with no opportunity for thought or discussion. Defamation is in no way an extension of that logic because defamation often does consist of advancing arguments and claims for deliberate, rational consideration.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:27
@NicHartley The "fire in a theater" logic is that you're not making an argument or conveying information for people to consider but instead provoking an immediate reaction with no opportunity for thought or discussion. Defamation is in no way an extension of that logic because defamation often does consist of advancing arguments and claims for deliberate, rational consideration.
– David Schwartz
Nov 21 at 19:27
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
Just because a person expects to lose a case may not stop them vexatiously suing you as a discouragement / punishment - if they can afford a big legal bill and you can't, just the threat of a big court case can be too much of a risk for a lot of people.
The UK courts in particular have been used for libel tourism as documented in Private Eye magazine - and they know plenty about libel!
answered Nov 21 at 18:02
John U
1492
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Just because a person expects to lose a case may not stop them vexatiously suing you as a discouragement / punishment - if they can afford a big legal bill and you can't, just the threat of a big court case can be too much of a risk for a lot of people.
The UK courts in particular have been used for libel tourism as documented in Private Eye magazine - and they know plenty about libel!
answered Nov 21 at 18:02
John U
1492
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Just because a person expects to lose a case may not stop them vexatiously suing you as a discouragement / punishment - if they can afford a big legal bill and you can't, just the threat of a big court case can be too much of a risk for a lot of people.
The UK courts in particular have been used for libel tourism as documented in Private Eye magazine - and they know plenty about libel!
answered Nov 21 at 18:02
John U
1492
Just because a person expects to lose a case may not stop them vexatiously suing you as a discouragement / punishment - if they can afford a big legal bill and you can't, just the threat of a big court case can be too much of a risk for a lot of people.
The UK courts in particular have been used for libel tourism as documented in Private Eye magazine - and they know plenty about libel!
answered Nov 21 at 18:02
John U
1492
answered Nov 21 at 18:02
John U
1492
answered Nov 21 at 18:02
John U
1492
answered Nov 21 at 18:02
John U
1492
1492
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
-3
down vote
Yes.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.
There is no expectation that they will succeed at their suit, it could be a completely frivolous waste of time and money.
answered Nov 21 at 19:35
Miles Prower
271
9
Welcome to StackExchange. You could cut and paste this answer to almost any legal question, and it wouldn't be wrong. But what makes a good answer here is more specificity, i.e. Things that pertain to this situation in particular.
– Harper
Nov 21 at 21:32
add a comment |
up vote
-3
down vote
Yes.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.
There is no expectation that they will succeed at their suit, it could be a completely frivolous waste of time and money.
answered Nov 21 at 19:35
Miles Prower
271
9
Welcome to StackExchange. You could cut and paste this answer to almost any legal question, and it wouldn't be wrong. But what makes a good answer here is more specificity, i.e. Things that pertain to this situation in particular.
– Harper
Nov 21 at 21:32
add a comment |
up vote
-3
down vote
up vote
-3
down vote
Yes.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.
There is no expectation that they will succeed at their suit, it could be a completely frivolous waste of time and money.
answered Nov 21 at 19:35
Miles Prower
271
Yes.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.
There is no expectation that they will succeed at their suit, it could be a completely frivolous waste of time and money.
answered Nov 21 at 19:35
Miles Prower
271
answered Nov 21 at 19:35
Miles Prower
271
answered Nov 21 at 19:35
Miles Prower
271
answered Nov 21 at 19:35
Miles Prower
271
271
9
Welcome to StackExchange. You could cut and paste this answer to almost any legal question, and it wouldn't be wrong. But what makes a good answer here is more specificity, i.e. Things that pertain to this situation in particular.
– Harper
Nov 21 at 21:32
add a comment |
9
Welcome to StackExchange. You could cut and paste this answer to almost any legal question, and it wouldn't be wrong. But what makes a good answer here is more specificity, i.e. Things that pertain to this situation in particular.
– Harper
Nov 21 at 21:32
9
9
Welcome to StackExchange. You could cut and paste this answer to almost any legal question, and it wouldn't be wrong. But what makes a good answer here is more specificity, i.e. Things that pertain to this situation in particular.
– Harper
Nov 21 at 21:32
Welcome to StackExchange. You could cut and paste this answer to almost any legal question, and it wouldn't be wrong. But what makes a good answer here is more specificity, i.e. Things that pertain to this situation in particular.
– Harper
Nov 21 at 21:32
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33692%2fcan-a-celebrity-sue-someone-who-takes-obnoxious-pictures-videos-of-him-in-public%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
I suppose you'd have to specify a location, but I would think not seeing how many such photos are seen in tabloid newspapers...
– colmde
Nov 21 at 8:25
1
Do you mean "in public" as in a public place or "in public" as in their public facing function. There is a difference between sitting in a public cafe with a friend and walking over the red carpet at the premiere of your newest movie.
– Darkwing
Nov 21 at 14:46
7
That depends on the jurisdiction. In some countries there is a kind of property right of images of yourself. See for example de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland) for the situation in Germany. Typically celebrities have less protection though and also if the person is the main target of the picture.
– Trilarion
Nov 21 at 15:35
11
"Can the celebrity sue for damages" Yes- all they need is a lawyer who will take their money and start the proceedings. "Can the celebrity win" Is the question that everyone is answering.
– UKMonkey
Nov 21 at 15:55
1
Hello and welcome to the site. Please edit this to specify a jurisdiction.
– curiousdannii
Nov 22 at 5:49