16

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.

user768421
  • 334
  • 2
  • 12
  • 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... – komodosp Nov 21 '18 at 08:25
  • 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. – Frank Hopkins Nov 21 '18 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 https://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. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Nov 21 '18 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 '18 at 15:55
  • @UKMonkey I'm pretty sure that comment has been done to death now. No one asking a question about suing cares about the trivial case of filing a suit that is certain to lose. If you really feel compelled to mention the difference, try, "Just FYI, 'sue' technically refers to filing a suit; it doesn't have to be winnable." – jpmc26 Nov 22 '18 at 02:45
  • 1
    Hello and welcome to the site. Please [edit] this to specify a jurisdiction. – curiousdannii Nov 22 '18 at 05:49
  • Done. Edited as told. – user768421 Nov 22 '18 at 06:01
  • 1
    @jpmc26 The point is often valid though. A wealthy celebrity could easily cause an ordinary member of the public a great deal of trouble at trivial cost to themselves. Depending on what one is doing, the risk can be that of being sued rather than of being succcesfully sued. (OTOH, a celebrity may chose not to sue when they are overwhelmingly likely to win, because of the risk of provoking the Streisand effect.) – Martin Bonner supports Monica Nov 22 '18 at 10:26
  • @jpmc26 "No one asking a question about suing cares about the trivial case of filing a suit that is certain to lose" You've applied an assumption of knowledge to the person asking that they know that anyone can file a suit for anything. On this site, it's a very big assumption. (And if it was "done to death" then why are people still failing to ask what they mean) – UKMonkey Nov 22 '18 at 10:26
  • Ed Miliband, is that you? – walrus Nov 22 '18 at 10:31
  • 1
    @UKMonkey, jpmc26: "winning" does not necessarily mean to win the suit. The celebrity typically tries to win popularity. 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'. A celebrity who, let's say, "accidentally" forgot the underwear and "accidentally" got into a compromising position is suddenly front page news again. If the celebrity then feels the urge for more media attention, a legal battle (esp. a ridiculous one) might just be thing. At the expense of the photographer. Which might backfire, as photojournalists will ignore this celebrity in the future. 'The only bad publicity is no publicity'. – Klaws Nov 22 '18 at 10:35
  • @Klaws I'd agree; but the question says "can they sue" not "can they win"... as such it doesn't matter what definition of win you pick, it's off topic. – UKMonkey Nov 22 '18 at 10:49
  • 1
    @Klaws I was gonna write this. Cheap way for some publicity. Do something embarrasing, have someone photograph it. Fake a suing. Cash in the "scandalous" news. Afterwards you can drop charges or smth. – mathreadler Nov 22 '18 at 15:24
  • @walrus: this is about American celebrities, not UK politicians. Americans use different methods of choosing the best possible politician than observing their bacon sandwich eating skills. Erm, yes, YMMV. – Klaws Nov 22 '18 at 15:59
  • @UKMonkey ...No, because I literally explained how you could deal with any misconceptions without sounding smug. See the last sentence of my initial comment. Questions that are worded with the assumption that "sue" means "win the lawsuit" are perfectly straightforward to recognize and answer, and there's no need to wrongly take them more literally. Just offer a gentle correction, maybe an edit (given that this is a law site). – jpmc26 Nov 23 '18 at 06:39

4 Answers4

34

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.

ANeves
  • 103
  • 3
Greendrake
  • 27,460
  • 4
  • 63
  • 126
  • 1
    Thanks for the answer. Upvoted. What about privacy in a private place such as restaurant? – user768421 Nov 21 '18 at 08:27
  • 3
    @user768421 taking photos will be allowed like in public unless expressly prohibited by the place owner. – Greendrake Nov 21 '18 at 08:29
  • 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: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/33692/can-a-celebrity-sue-someone-who-takes-obnoxious-pictures-videos-of-him-in-public/33693#comment61892_33692 – ANeves Nov 21 '18 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. – user91988 Nov 21 '18 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 '18 at 19:23
  • Minor nitpick, he said the celeb was American, not happening in America. ;) – Rui F Ribeiro Nov 22 '18 at 10:44
  • "and he/she is free to use them in whatever way." - I would like some form of citation for this. I agree that the photo is legal and belongs to the photographer, but the right to publicity can include (varies by jurisdiction) protection of the commercial interest of the celebrity's image, and I wonder if dissemination violates that right. – DPenner1 Nov 22 '18 at 14:00
  • 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 '18 at 18:26
6

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.
bdb484
  • 58,968
  • 3
  • 129
  • 184
  • 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 '18 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. – Michael Lorton Nov 21 '18 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 '18 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. –  Nov 21 '18 at 17:25
  • @JohnBollinger In practice it's hard to for defamation cases to succeed in the US especially when its a public figure, like a celebrity or politician that's been defamed. – Ross Ridge Nov 21 '18 at 19:09
  • @RossRidge Yet right of publicity lawsuits are much more likely to succeed when it's a public figure like a celebrity. – David Schwartz Nov 21 '18 at 19:26
  • 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 '18 at 19:27
  • @DavidSchwartz Huh, TIL. I thought defamation was about making claims that couldn't possibly be argued because they're provably wrong. And like I said, it's an extension, not the same logic -- the "fire in a theater" logic is "you're causing harm through panic by shouting that people are all gonna die". The defamation logic is "you're causing harm in general by saying something factually incorrect". –  Nov 21 '18 at 20:58
  • @NicHartley The "fire in a theater" logic is that you're not advancing arguments for rational consideration but instead provoking an immediate action, there's no restriction whatsoever on your ability to make false claims for people's rational consideration. The "defamation" logic is entirely unrelated. You can't argue that the common element is harm and thus it's an extension to a slightly different form of harmful speech because anyone who wants to restrict anything will argue that it causes harm. Christians can argue that Muslims make claims that are false and harmful and vice versa. – David Schwartz Nov 21 '18 at 21:05
  • With respect, most everything going on in this thread is incorrect. Both the fire and defamation actions would be permitted because of the harm associated with them. A law that punishes speech, criminally or civilly, will only survive a First Amendment analysis if it causes some significant harm. – bdb484 Nov 21 '18 at 23:43
  • But that is the point. The OP posits a situation in which a celebrity suffers harm from the photographer's action of publishing photos, and that harm is the proposed basis for a lawsuit. The OP is vague, but perhaps the celebrity asserts that millions of dollars in future revenue have been lost as a result of the photographer's action. Would that not constitute significant harm? – John Bollinger Nov 22 '18 at 20:42
  • There is no law against inflicting "harm" on another person. The question is always going to be whether the harm is legally cognizable. Losing income because someone lied about your business is a legally cognizable harm. Being embarrassed because people know the truth about what you do in public is not a legally cognizable harm. – bdb484 Nov 24 '18 at 01:44
4

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!

John U
  • 149
  • 3
-3

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.

Miles Prower
  • 27
  • 1
  • 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 - Reinstate Monica Nov 21 '18 at 21:32