Oregon

Oregon recognizes intrusion, false light, and misappropriation but has rejected the private facts tort. Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting Co., 712 P.2d 803 (Or. 1986).

Intrusion: The alleged trespass of a news crew during a police search of a home was not sufficient to mandate a finding of invasion of privacy; the jury properly considered other factors in determining that the crews conduct was not highly offensive. , 798 P.2d 1106 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

The publication of a photograph of a prisoner being booked at a jail is protected because law enforcement is a matter of public interest. , 13 Med. L. Rptr. 1057 (D. Or. 1986).

Private Facts: The television broadcast of film footage of an automobile accident victim in a spot advertisement for a special news report on emergency medical services was protected as newsworthy. , 712 P.2d 803 (Or. 1986).

False Light: The Oregon Supreme Court noted in a 1998 opinion that it had not previously recognized the false light invasion of privacy tort, but then refrained from deciding whether to do so because the statements before it, regarding a campaign against expansion of an airport, did not place a local stunt pilot in a false light. The state Supreme Court did note, however, that the Oregon Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, has recognized false light claims for more than a decade. 965 P.2d 1030 (Or. 1998).

The publication of a photograph of a visitor at an alcohol treatment center’s open house to illustrate an article about the center may have implied that the visitor was a patient at the center. Therefore, the visitor had sufficient grounds for a false light claim. , 744 P.2d 1296 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Where a photograph of a student accompanied an article that described the student as engaged in an “apparent drug transaction,” the student could not have evidence of her drug use excluded from a trial on her false light claim. , 669 P.2d 818 (Or. Ct. App.), , 672 P.2d 1193 (Or. 1983).

Misappropriation: The use of videotape of an accident victim to promote a special news report was not misappropriation. , 712 P.2d 803 (Or. 1986).

A picture of a student apparently engaged in a drug transaction that was included in a feature article did not give rise to a misappropriation claim. , 669 P.2d 818 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

A man who challenged his consent to the use of his picture on a poster because he did not receive the promised compensation had no misappropriation claim, but he may have been entitled to modeling fee. , 590 P.2d 291 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).