XPost: aus.legal, misc.legal, uk.legal
From: reality@check.it
"Deadrat" wrote in message
news:2aWdnYbwDtVuQk3XnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Wes Groleau wrote in news:haqi80$bcv$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> The OP was outside of his home mowing the lawn. A photo of him mowing
>>> was taken and placed on the web. I see nothing illegal in this.
>>
>> I would have no idea whether it is legal in his area--or even
>> what his area is. But I wonder why so many outfits ask people
>> to explicitly sign permissions to use their likenesses.
>>
>> I also remember reading in law school
>
> You don't say what area the law school is. US?
>
>> (I never enrolled, I just worked for the library)
>
> So a cite to the "case" is probably out of the question, eh?
>
>> a case in which a celebrity's
>> suit about the publication of his/her picture was rejected
>> with dicta that he/she had _partially_ given up privacy rights
>> by becoming a "public figure."
>
> If by "rejected," you mean that the defendant was granted summary
> judgment,
> it seems odd that the dismissal would have included dicta at all or that
> the reason (a partial surrender of privacy rights) would be dicta.
>
> "Public figure" is a term of art in defamation law. As far as I know,
> everyone has the same rights to privacy. That is, both Tom Cruise and I
> have an expectation of privacy in our own living rooms and none on a
> public
> street.
Then try eavesdropping and recording a conversation between Tom and Katie on
a public
street and see what happens when you attempt to publish said conversation.
>The difference being, of course, that I have an expectation that
> no one will care when I'm out in public.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
