District of Columbia

The District of Columbia recognizes the four privacy torts.

Intrusion: A reporter did not intrude upon the privacy of a public school principal and secretary by entering the school to interview the principal and, later, to retrieve a notebook because the reporter was only present in areas that were open to the public and in which school employees had no expectation of privacy. In addition, taking photographs in a public school while pursuing a news story would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Marcus Garvey Charter Sch. v. Washington Times Corp., 27 Med. L. Rptr. 1225 (D.C. Super. Ct. 1998).

Private facts: A woman whose photographs were used in a department stores before-and-after presentation about plastic surgery potentially had a publicatio of private facts claim against her doctor because a jury could find the display highly offensive, and there was no sufficient connection between her photographs and the general subject of plastic surgery. The department store, however, was not liable because it believed she had consented to the public disclosure of the photographs. Vassiliades v. Garfinckels, 492 A.2d 580 (D.C. Ct. App. 1985).

A jury was deemed the appropriate body to determine whether documentary film footage of a young girl using dolls to demonstrate alleged sexual abuse amounted to wrongful disclosure of private facts, or was a matter of legitimate public concern. Foretich v. Lifetime Cable, 777 F. Supp. 47 (D.D.C. 1991), appeal dismissed, 953 F.2d 688 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (case settled March 23, 1992).

The publication of a photograph of a drug addict alongside a story quoting the same addict but using a pseudonym was not publication of private facts because the addict consented to the interview and waived any privacy rights with respect to the photograph. The publics interest in drug addiction supported the dissemination of credible information on the effects and risks of drug abuse, and the addicts claims regarding his lack of consent were not credible. Little v. Washington Post, 11 Med. L. Rptr. 1428 (D.D.C. 1985).

False light: A woman whose photographs were used in a before-and-after presentation about plastic surgery had no false light action because an alleged manipulation of lighting was insufficient to state a claim, and the presentation of the photographs did not suggest her endorsement. Vassiliades v. Garfinckels, 492 A.2d 580 (D.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Four black youths attending a street festival were photographed standing on a corner near a telephone booth. The photograph was used six months later to illustrate a news magazine article on unemployment among young blacks and was captioned, "For young blacks who are unemployed, many empty hours are spent hanging out on city streets." The pictured youths, each of whom had a job, had sufficient grounds for a false light claim. Claims against the freelance photographer who took the picture were dismissed, however, because he did not write the caption. Reid v. U.S. News & World Report, No. 6828-82 (D.C. Super. Ct. 1983).

A woman whose photograph was broadcast in a television report while the accompanying narration said "for the 20 million Americans who have herpes, its not a cure," had a valid false light claim because viewers might have inferred that she had herpes. Duncan v. WJLA-TV 106 F.R.D. 4 (D.D.C. 1984).

The photograph of a taxi driver, published without his consent alongside a satirical article about dishonest cab drivers, may provide grounds for a false light claim. Peay v. Curtis Publishing Co., 78 F. Supp. 305 (D.D.C. 1948).

Television news broadcasts that suggested a local landlord, who was a private figure, tipped off drug dealers about an impending police raid did not create liability for false light invasion of privacy because the broadcasters were not negligent in failing to verify the truth of the allegation, as their source was a high-ranking police official whose credibility could be presumed. Kendrick v. Fox Television, 659 A.2d 814 (D.C. 1995).

A clarinetist with the National Symphony Orchestra had no false light claim as the result of the distribution of promotional materials for a holiday concert that depicted an actor posing as a clarinet player. The actor hired did not resemble the clarinetist, and thus, the publication was not "of and concerning him," and a photograph of a man merely playing a clarinet would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The clarinetists proposed "reasonable performing artist" standard was rejected, and the more general reasonable person standard was applied. Kitt v. Capital Concerts, Inc., No. 97-CV-780 (D.C. August 5, 1999).

Misappropriation: A woman whose photographs were used in a before-and-after presentation about plastic sugery had no misappropriation claim because there was no public interest or commercial value in her likeness. Vassiliades v. Garfinckels, 492 A.2d 580 (D.C. Ct. App. 1985).