Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania recognizes the four privacy torts.

Intrusion:A prison official’s grant of permission to a television news crew to film an inmate was not egregious enough to violate the inmate’s constitutional right to privacy. , 19 Med. L. Rptr. 2064 (E.D. Pa. 1992).

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. , 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. , 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. , 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. , 406 F. Supp. 858 (W.D. Pa. 1976).

False Light: A jury was entitled to decide whether the use of a man’s photograph on a book cover placed him in a false light by linking him with the Antichrist. , 10 Med. L. Rptr. 2459 (E.D. Pa. 1984).

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. , 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. , 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. , 10 Med. L. Rptr. 2459 (E.D. Pa. 1984).