Abortion Cams - stepping over the line or not?

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**
Maybe I’m getting my laws confused, but out here in California (and perhaps other states), there’s a law that says a person has the right to determine how his/her image is used, public or otherwise. E.g., I cannot camp outside the Kodak Theater in Hollywood, snap some photos of Julia Roberts, and then plaster them all over creation, because I didn’t get her permission to do so.
**

Ya gotta cite for that?

Because then according to your reading of the law…every single paparazzi (sp?) violates the law on a regular basis in California. And The National Enquirer et al would be hauled in to court on a regular basis for publishing those “stars without their makeup” pictures.

[istara]

Using someone’s photo without their permission to imply that they endorse a commercial product is usually illegal.

Even if the thing they are endorsing is a legal or positive thing.

The Douglas/Zeta-Jones lawsuit may make a ruling that affects or protects paparazzi in terms of right to take unauthorised pictures. I sure to hell hope it fails, because if we had to get the authorisation of every single person we ever filmed (eg crowds in the street) for a news story, there wouldn’t be much news, or it would all be pics of buildings.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

I look forward to a new wave of spam in my inbox:

Hi! I’m Horsley and I just got my web cam up. Me and my inbred cousins like to fool around with daddy’s camera and take pictures of the godless heathens walking into the Planned Parenthood building. Come check us out!!!

---

The Wall Street Journal article yesterday seemed to lay out the abortion protesters’ position fairly well.

The abortion protesters are claiming that they are journalists and use the pictures to accompany copy on the websites.

I had never heard the argument framed in that way before.

It happened before:

Ashcroft may reverse policy that protects journalists

Justice Department spokesman Chris Watney declined to discuss the case. But, speaking generally, she said that Ashcroft’s approval was not needed if a person was not considered a journalist by prosecutors.

So you don’t receive privileges simply by saying “I’m a journalist. Yeah, that’s the ticket… I’m a journalist!”, unless you really are a journalist.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by beagledave *
Ya gotta cite for that?

Okay, I dug it up. It’s California Civil Code 3344(a) (West 1999), whatever that means:

Cal. Civil Code § 3344(a) (West 1999). Under this provision, one may not knowingly use the photograph of another for commercial use without the permission of the subject, regardless of who owns the photograph. The same rules apply for using the name, voice, signature or likeness of another. The statute provides an exception for using another’s name, voice, etc. for news, public affairs, sports broadcasts or political campaigns. See id. § 3344(d).

Apparently I did mangle the law a bit, as it’s prohibiting commercial use of the images. So I suppose if the anti-abortionists aren’t selling posters of the people they’re photographing, they’re scot-free.

[chula]

We tend to think of “invasion of privacy” as involving some sort of intrusive act to obtain private information about another person, but the legal definition is somehwat different. “Public disclosure of private facts” is the type of invasion of privacy that applies here. Essentially, they have to show that 1) there was publicity (made known to the public at large); 2) the matter concerned is private; 3) the disclosure is highly offensive or embarrassing; and 4) the matter is not of legitimate concern to the public. In the Michigan case I referred to, anti-abortionists held up signs outside the clinic with the women’s names, and the court ruled in their favor:

Likewise, in this case, plaintiffs’ complaint alleges a private matter. The alleged disclosure concerns the plaintiffs’ decisions to have an abortion. We have no hesitancy in concluding that such an allegation involves a matter that a reasonable person would consider private. Indeed, abortion concerns matters of sexual relations and medical treatment, both of which are regarded as private matters. Furthermore, even though the abortion issue may be regarded as a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs’ identities in this case were not matters of legitimate public concern, nor a matter of public record, but, instead, were purely private matters. We conclude, therefore, that plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to meet the minimum prima facie showing necessary to establish that the information disclosed must concern a private matter.
…
Defendants also maintain that the undisputed facts show that they did not give publicity to a private matter because the Women’s Advisory Center is located in a public place and plaintiffs’ “comings and goings to the clinic were acts exposed to the public eye.” The information disclosed, however, concerned an activity that took place within the private confines of the clinic, a matter which was not “exposed to the public eye.” Also, merely because plaintiffs’ “comings and goings” may have been visible to members of the public does not mean that the public was aware of the precise purpose of those "comings and goings."

I’m not clear on the facts of this case. They would have no way of knowing how was entering the clinic in order to obtain an abortion and who was entering for other purposes. Obtaining this additional information would involve a further invasion of privacy.

A different standard applies to celebrities:

So far as his public appearances and activities themselves are concerned, such an individual has, properly speaking, no right of privacy, since these are no longer his private affairs…The home life and daily habits of a motion picture actress may be of legitimate and reasonable interest to the public that sees her on the screen. The extent of the authority to make public private facts is not, however, unlimited. There may be some intimate details of her life, such as sexual relations, which even the actress is entitled to keep to herself. REST 2d Torts § 652D.

rjung, that statute applies to commercial use of a person’s likeness; there’s a different standard for non-commercial use.

Admittedly, I’m trying to make a legal argument on behalf of the victims rather than present a balanced view of the law. It’s not a clear-cut case. To make matters worse, the Restatement also says that “It has not been established with certainty that liability of this nature is consistent with the free-speech and free-press provisions of the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

[chula]

Sorry, rjung for correcting you when you had already corrected yourself. I missed the last line. Most of our laws are not found in statutes, so just because no part of the civil code deals with this, doesn’t mean they’re getting off scot-free.

[MsRobyn]

I read the Wall Street Journal article yesterday.

Aside from the fact that I am sick beyond words at the actions of people like the Scotts and Horsley, I think what they are doing crosses the line from legitimate activism and into speech that is designed to incite action. At one point, Stephen Wetzel, who runs a similar site, has the nerve to say:

Mr. Wetzel says the woman has no reason to fear for her safety. “Nobody’s going to go after a girl for getting an abortion,” he says. “They’re as much a victim as the babies are.”

Ummm, wanna tell that to the families of the doctors who were murdered because their names were on a website?

Robin