Texas recognizes the intrusion, private facts, and misappropriation torts. Texas does not recognize false light. Cain v. Hearst Corp., No. D-4171 (Tex. June 22, 1994).

Intrusion: A court allowed a man to go forward with his invasion of privacy suit against his wife and the private investigator she hired to install a camera in the couple’s bedroom. Clayton v. Richards, 47 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2001).

A television broadcast that showed footage of a private residence was protected because it was shot from a public street. , 721 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1983).

Private Facts: A man was allowed to sue a newspaper for breach of fiduciary duty, tortuous interference with contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress after it published photographs of his dead wife in her coffin, but the court ruled for the newspaper on all issues. Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. v. Wootten, 59 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App. Austin 2001).

A photograph from a high school soccer game that showed a player’s genitalia was privileged under the First Amendment because the public event was newsworthy. , 802 S.W.2d 901 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991).

A news broadcast that used the first name of a rape victim and a picture of the residence where she was attacked did not support an invasion of privacy claim because the broadcast which questioned the guilt of the convicted rapist was newsworthy. , 870 F.2d 271 (5th Cir.), , 493 U.S. 935 (1989).

Certain nude photographs of children originally appeared, with parental consent, in , a book on human sexuality. Republication of those photos to illustrate a book review of in a sexually explicit magazine was protected. , 607 F. Supp. 1341 (N.D. Tex. 1985), , 799 F.2d 1000 (5th Cir. 1986), , 479 U.S. 1088 (1987).

Misappropriation: Anheuser-Busch did not misappropriate the name and likeness of a war hero in a documentary about Hispanic war heroes because the film was made not to boost sales, but as a public service. , 873 F.2d 102 (5th Cir. 1989).