Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania recognizes the four privacy torts.

Intrusion: A prison officials grant of permission to a television news crew to film an inmate was not egregious enough to violate the inmates constitutional right to privacy. Jones/Seymour v. LeFebvre, 19 Med. L. Rptr. 2064 (E.D. Pa. 1992).

When a tenant gave a television news crew permission to enter and film on rental property, the landlord had no grounds for a trespass claim, even if he had told the tenant not to allow the media on the premises. Lal v. CBS, 9 Med. L. Rptr. 1113 (E.D. Pa. 1982).

The publication of a photograph of people standing at an airline ticket counter beside boxes of merchandise, when used to illustrate a magazine article about the extensive purchases made by Latin Americans in Miami, was protected because the photograph was taken in a public place. Fogel v. Forbes Inc., 500 F. Supp. 1081 (E.D. Pa. 1980).

Private facts: The publication of a photograph, along with the name, of a child abuse victim was not highly offensive, given that the man prosecuted for the abuse was a former police chief, and the media had a right to cover his prosecution. The allegation that a reporter had promised the victim confidentiality was irrelevant because one who discusses matters of public concern with the press does so at the risk that the material may be published. Morgan v. Celender, 780 F. Supp. 307 (W.D. Pa. 1992).

The publication of a nude photograph of a woman in a bathtub without her consent as a newspaper centerfold was not newsworthy. The court found reasonable grounds for a private facts claim. McCabe v. Village Voice, 550 F. Supp. 525 (E.D. Pa 1982).

The publication of a photograph of a football fan at a game with the zipper of his pants open did not disclose private facts because the fan was photographed in a public place for a newsworthy article on football. The court noted that the fan consented to being photographed. Nef v. Time, Inc., 406 F. Supp. 858 (W.D. Pa. 1976).

False light: The owner of a cleaning service called "Maids to Order" could not sue a television station for false light over a news feature that used the phrase "maid to order" and depicted scantily clad women about to clean a house. The reference did not relate to the owner, who also made no showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Kosor v. WPXI Inc., 21 Med. L. Rptr. 1956 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pleas 1993).

A jury was entitled to decide whether the use of a mans photograph on a book cover placed him in a false light by linking him with the Antichrist. Kennedy v. Ministries, Inc., 10 Med. L. Rptr. 2459 (E.D. Pa. 1984).

A magazine published a photograph of a person in a Mummers costume at a parade with a caption that read, "A New Years tribute here to all the ostriches who gave their tails to make the world free for closet transvestites from South Philly to get themselves stinking drunk." The court said the man in the costume had grounds for a false light claim because a reasonable person might find the caption offensive. Martin v. Municipal Publications, 510 F. Supp. 255 (E.D. Pa. 1981).

The publication of a photograph of people standing at an airline ticket counter beside boxes of merchandise, used to illustrate a magazine article about extensive purchases made by Latin Americans in Miami, did not portray the subjects in an offensive manner. Fogel v. Forbes Inc., 500 F. Supp. 1081 (E.D. Pa 1980).

When television news editors spliced film segments together for a "shock effect" and made a hunter falsely appear to be shooting a goose that was not in flight, the hunter had grounds for a false light claim. The court said the splicing and inaccurate portrayal would be sufficient evidence of actual malice. Uhl v. CBS, 476 F. Supp. 1134 (W.D. Pa. 1979).

Misappropriation: A model stated a claim for misappropriation against a nonprofit group that used his picture to illustrate the cover of a book and in advertisements for the book. Kennedy v. Ministries, Inc., 10 Med. L. Rptr. 2459 (E.D. Pa. 1984).