Ohio courts recognize all four privacy torts. Previously, the court did not recognize false light, but it reversed its position and decided to recognize it in a 2007 case. Welling v. Weinfeld, 866 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio 2007).

Intrusion: A news broadcast about children victimized by their parents involvement with drugs included footage of a woman with her children at a drug raid. The woman, who alleged she was at the scene merely to pick up her children from their babysitter, stated claims for intrusion and defamation. , 615 N.E.2d 669 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992), , 608 N.E.2d 1085 (Ohio 1993).

ABC reporter Geraldo Rivera did not violate a then-existing state wiretap statute when he and a camera crew confronted a suspected “hit man.” , 932 F.2d 495 (6th Cir. 1991).

A woman who was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera, who secretly filmed and recorded the interview, could not sue for violation of the federal wiretap law because a then-current provision barring taping for “injurious purpose” was unconstitutionally vague and would likely inhibit reporting. , 881 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1989), , 493 U.S. 1028 (1990).

Parents sued a headstone company for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress for using a photograph of their son’s headstone in their sales brochures. The court found for the company, since there was no proof that it intended to cause emotional distress or that it put the parents in fear of physical peril. Walkosky v. Valley Memorials, 765 N.E.2d 429 (Ohio App. 2001).

Private Facts: Broadcasting videotape of an innocent person wrongly arrested at a bar during a drug raid did not disclose private facts because the raid was a matter of legitimate public concern. , 469 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).

The publication of police officer Fred Powell’s photograph in an article about substance abuse by officer Fred Powell was not a private fact because the photograph was a public record. , 19 Med. L. Rptr. 1727 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pls. 1991).

The publication of a photograph of three children and a policewoman fixing a flat bicycle tire, as part of a photograph spread that included nude pictures of the woman, did not disclose private facts about the children because the photo was taken on a public street while the children were in public view. , 574 F. Supp. 10 (S.D. Ohio 1983).

False Light: A case involving a couple who sued their neighbor over handbills she distributed asking for tips about a potential vandalism on her property gave the Ohio Supreme Court a chance to formally recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy. Welling v. Weinfeld, 866 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio 2007).

Misappropriation: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a news broadcast showing the entire 15-second act of a human cannonball violated his right to control publicity about himself. The Court emphasized that the entire act was shown, implying that it might not recognize a right to publicity claim for the use of something less than an entire act in a news program. , 433 U.S. 562 (1977).

A magazine’s incidental use of a man’s wedding photograph in an article did not misappropriate anything of value beyond the value the man paced on his own likeness. , 904 F.2d 707, 17 Med. L. Rptr. 1962 (6th Cir. 1990).

The incidental use in a “20/20” program of the likeness of a suspected “hit man” did not support a misappropriation claim because the matter was of legitimate public concern. , 737 F. Supp. 431 (N.D. Ohio 1990), , 932 F.2d 495 (6th Cir. 1991).