Now, let's look at some of the finer details
Misappropriating: This can include using someone's name or photo without a release. This has happened to catalogs, newspapers. A photo ends up in an ad or it is used for publicity. Later, you are contacted and told that you did not have permission to post that photo -- it is being used for commercial purposes and that party wants money or they will sue. (This gets close to copyright, except you own the photo as you took it but you do not really have the right to use it without permission). A bigger worry would be using a generic photo in the wrong way. For example, you need a photo for a blog you are writing on gang activity in your town. You dig out a photo you took of a few teens on the street -- some of them can be identified. You write about teen criminals involved in gangs, the kids or their parents see the article, you might be in hot water. This one could tie in with "false light" too.
Intrusion: This includes taking photos, spying on people or releasing information you gleaned from private places. Even celebrities and public figures, who have very few protections compared to the rest of us, are supposed to have some limited right to privacy -- no photos of people through their bedroom windows (although the paparazzi seems to get by with that too). A general rule is, if the person is out in public, on the street, in a bar, he or she is fair game, otherwise not. You cannot tap a phone, put a spycam in or eavesdrop on a fellow employee or a boss who is working in a private setting such as the office, and then write all about it as the inside scoop. If that person, you are writing about, was bragging about his or her exploits at a party then that is another story. And in certain instances, ratting someone out could be covered by whistle-blower laws, depending on many variables and the stakes.
False light: This was mentioned above -- the teens who were depicted as being in a street gang when they were not. If any person can be identified from a photo, this can be a big problem for the writer. A street person does not qualify as a "stock photo" to be used to depict someone who is dishonest or unsavory. While photos often tie in to invasion of privacy issues, the same, or a similar, problem can emerge from careless use of the printed word as well.
Publishing private facts: The emphasis here is on the word facts. Some details might be facts but they are not anyone's business. For example, delving into private financial records or medical records would be very dangerous. Heck, you might know about a person's finances, sex life and health issues as a result of working with that person, but you cannot disclose that information in your blog. Especially in this kind of situation, dealing with a business associate and not a celeb, TRUTH IS NOT A DEFENSE.
What is your defense strategy, if you should be sued?
Chances are that, before things get nasty, you will be asked to remove the text or image that offends. But, if there is a lawsuit, there are only a few common defenses.
(1) Newsworthiness, you claim that you disclosed this information for the general public interest, welfare or good.
(2) Public Record, you argue that everything you printed was already in the public record, such as an arrest record, a story in the newspaper.
(3) Consent, you argue that the person consented to publication -- best supported with a written release.
Invasion of Privacy is a little known, and even lesser understood, area of the law that is often mistaken for libel law. In fact, it is very different, since truth is not a defense in many cases.
Again, I am not a lawyer, but I did have several years of practical professional experience trying to keep a news department out of hot water. This blog is very elementary, only a primer, but I hope the information provides Active Rain bloggers with some insight into this complex topic. If nothing else, if it leads to people thinking about things they normally do not think about, it was a success.
Gary Hart, running for President years ago, is a classic example of an individual who had essentially no right to privacy -- based on his being a public figure. On the other hand, in this famous photo that unwound his career, he was very public, very vulnerable and an easy target. You might say that he jumped, without needing a push, right into the soup.
To read my related post on libel risks and your blog, click here
Steven L. Smith
Bellingham WA Home Inspections
;)
Links;)
Tags (Tag Cloud);)
Archives
Posted by 
This is great and scary stuff. Thanks for sharing information we all should be considering.