California

California recognizes the four privacy torts, and has a misappropriation statute. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 990, 3344. California also has a law that creates civil liability for news photographers who trespass and invade a persons privacy with "malicious" intent. The law provides for tripling a jurys damages award and allows punitive damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8.

Intrusion: A television network secretly videotaped a news producers conversation with a potential source as the two stood at the sources doorstep and later aired a five-second excerpt of the videotape, even though the source declined an on-camera interview. There was no physical intrusion into the sources privacy because she was in full public view from the street while speaking with the producer, and the network filmed her from a public place across the street. In addition, the source spoke freely with the producer and must have known the contents of the conversation might be repeated, and the network never revealed her name or address. Deteresa v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc, 121 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1997).

Two people injured in a car accident could sue for intrusion based on the fact that a cameraman recorded emergency care given in a rescue helicopter, regardless of the fact that the accident victims expected their conversations with rescue workers in the helicopter to be overheard by others and the fact that they could not claim a right of privacy at the accident scene prior to being moved to the helicopter. Shulman v. Group W Productions, 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1998).

An undercover reporter who obtained a job as a "telepsychic" and secretly videotaped conversations with her coworkers might have intruded upon a coworkers seclusion because the coworkers expectation that his conversations might be overheard in the office did not prevent an expectation that the conversations were not being recorded by a reporter. Sanders v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999).

Secretly photographing Joan Collins, a celebrity and public figure, while she was on her private property, along with the publication of the photographs, did not constitute a violation of federal racketeering laws. Globe Intl Inc. v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).

A television news broadcast about a judge who was given the lowest rating possible in a poll of attorneys included footage of him leaving his home. The judges intrusion claim failed because he was in public view when the footage was filmed, and because the news crew did not enter his property, contact him physically, endaner his safety, or disclose where he lived. Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co., 269 Cal. Rptr. 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).

The wife of a heart attack victim had valid claims for trespass and intrusion against a television news crew that entered her home without her consent to videotape unsuccessful attempts by paramedics to save her husbands life. Miller v. National Broadcasting Co., 232 Cal. Rptr. 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

The surreptitious recording and photographing of a "quack" doctor, who was later convicted of unauthorized practice of medicine, may constitute an intrusion. Subsequent publication of the photos in Life magazine was not essential to the intrusion upon seclusion claim, but was admissible to establish damages. Dietemann v. Time Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971).

A domestic violence victim who allowed a television news crew to come into her home could not claim trespass or intrusion. It was irrelevant to her trespass and intrusion claims that she asserted her consent to the medias presence was obtained through fraud. A possible claim based solely on fraud or intentional misrepresentation did exist, however. Baugh v. CBS Inc., 828 F. Supp. 745 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

Private facts: The publication of a photo of revelers at a public "Exotic Erotic Ball" was protected because the activities were observable by thousands of strangers. Martin v. Penthouse, 12 Med. L. Rptr. 2058 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

A domestic violence victim who was filmed in her home by a television news crew could sue for disclosure of private facts because the facts broadcast as a result of the news crews presence went beyond the information available in a police report. Also, the broadcast may have been degrading, and the victims involvement in the domestic violence incident might not have been newsworthy. Baugh v. CBS Inc., 828 F. Supp. 745 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

Broadcasting footage of rescue workers helping two car accident victims in an emergency helicopter did not create liability for publication of private facts because the rescue efforts were newsworthy. Shulman v. Group W Productions, 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1998).

False light: A photograph of an actress and a producer leaving a restaurant together, accompanied by an article stating that they were dating -- when, in fact, the producers wife was present at the time the photograph was taken -- might constitute false light invasion of privacy. Fellows v. National Enquirer, 721 P.2d 97 (Cal. 1986).

A photograph of a married couple in an affectionate pose, taken without their knowledge or permission, that was used to illustrate an article that said love at first sight was founded upon sexual attraction alone and would be followed by divorce was sufficient to establish a false light claim. Gill v. Curtis Publishing Co., 239 P.2d 630 (Cal. 1952).

Videotape broadcast of a judge leaving his home did not place him in a false light because it was a fair, accurate depiction of the person and scene, and was not highly offensive. Aisenson v. American Broadcasting Co., 269 Cal. Rptr. 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).

The juxtaposition of a picture of attendees of an "Exotic Erotic Ball" with pictures of performers at the ball did not amount to false light because the photos truthfully depicted both the revelry and performances that occurred at the ball. Martin v. Penthouse, 12 Med. L. Rptr. 2058 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

A sexually explicit magazines publication of a cartoon and sequence of photographs portraying an anti-pornography activist could not be viewed by a reasonable reader as statements of fact, and therefore, did not place the activist in a false light. Dworkin v. Hustler, 668 F. Supp. 1408 (C.D. Cal. 1987), affd on other grounds, 867 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812 (1989).

A former baseball player who claimed his image appeared in a drawing used to advertise beer could not pursue a false light claim aainst the advertisers because he was unable to show that the advertisement caused any damage to his business or property. Newcombe v. Adolph Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998).

Misappropriation: A computer-altered photograph of Dustin Hoffman, dressed in drag as he was in the movie "Tootsie," made him appear to be wearing certain designer clothes and was published as part of a spring fashion section of a magazine. A federal district judge ordered the magazine to pay Hoffman $1.5 million in compensatory and $1.5 million in punitive damages for altering and publishing the photograph without permission. Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999).

The publics interest in a documentary about surfing precluded a depicted surfers misappropriation claim. Dora v. Frontline Video Inc., 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).

A photograph of revelers at an "Exotic Erotic Ball" was not misappropriation because the likenesses of the revelers were not commercially exploitable, and the magazine that published the photograph did not use the revelers likenesses for advertising purposes. Martin v. Penthouse, 12 Med. L. Rptr. 2058 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

The unauthorized use of a celebritys photo on the cover of a publication and in related televised advertisements used to promote an article that contained false information may be considered a misappropriation. Eastwood v. Superior Court, 198 Cal. Rptr. 342 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).

A television commercial depicting a robot in Vanna Whites Wheel of Fortune role permitted White to claim violation of a common law right of publicity, but not violation of Californias misappropriation statute. White v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), rehg denied, 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2443 (1993).

Hustler magazines use of a womans photograph to illustrate an article attacking her anti-pornography campaign was not misappropriation because her image was not used exclusively for Hustlers commercial gain. The fact that Hustler was operated for profit did not automatically give its contents a commercial purpose. Leidholdt v. L.F.P. Inc., 860 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1080 (1989).

A feminist author did not state a misappropriation claim against a magazine for using her name in a sexually-explicit photograph and cartoon captions because the magazine did not appropriate the commercial benefit of her performance, and the captions did not suggest her endorsement of the magazine. Dworkin v. Hustler, 867 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812 (1989).

A magazine was entitled to use a celebritys picture and refer to her in a truthful manner as part of an advertisement soliciting subscriptions, as long as the photo indicated the content of the publication -- regardless of whether the celebrity actually had endorsed the publication. Cher v. Forum, 692 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1120 (1983).

The "news account" exception to misappropriation under the California statute barred recovery by a domestic violence victim who was filmed by a television news magazine. Baugh v. CBS Inc., 828 F. Supp. 745 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

The misappropriation statutes restrictions on the use of a "likeness" included the unauthorized use of a photograph of a distinctive, customized motorcycle, but no liability existed for the use of a picture of the motorcycle on a card soliciting magazine subscriptions. Int-Elect Engineering Inc. v. Clinton Harley Corp., 21 Med. L. Rptr. 1762 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

A model was awarded $63,750 in damages for the unauthorized publication of a photograph on the cover of, and in an advertisements for, a pornographic magazine. Clark v. Celeb Publishing Inc., 530 F. Supp. 979 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).

The creator of the 1950s "Vampira television movie hostess character had no cause of action against a similar 1980s "Elvira" character because "likeness" means an exact copy, not a suggestive resemblance. Nurmi v. Peterson, 16 Med. L. Rptr. 1606 (C.D. Cal. 1989).

Advertisers who used a former professional baseball players likeness, without his consent, in a drawing that appeared in an advertisement for beer misappropriated his image under common law and under the California statute, so long as the drawing could readily be identified as depicting the player. Newcombe v. Adolph Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 1998).