Media Law And Ethics

Front 1

Appropriation

Back 1

a name or likeness for trade purpose (profit/trade purposes) Commercial use.

Front 2

Intrusion of privacy

Back 2

illegal to intrude physically or otherwise ( in other words “leave me alone”)

Front 3

Publication of private information

Back 3

it’s illegal to publicize private information about a person if the matter that is publicized:
A) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
B) Is not of legitimate concern or public interest. – outweighs embarrassment

Front 4

False light

Back 4

publishing material that puts someone in a false light.

Front 5

Name and define four major wrongs or torts that makeup the law of privacy

Back 5

False light,Publication of private information ,Intrusion of privacy,Appropriation

Front 6

Appropriation

Back 6

a name or likeness for trade purpose (profit/trade purposes) Commercial use.

Front 7

Intrusion of privacy

Back 7

illegal to intrude physically or otherwise ( in other words “leave me alone”)

Front 8

Publication of private information

Back 8

it’s illegal to publicize private information about a person if the matter that is publicized:
A) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
B) Is not of legitimate concern or public interest. – outweighs embarrassment

Front 9

False light

Back 9

publishing material that puts someone in a false light.

Front 10

Name and define four major wrongs or torts that makeup the law of privacy

Back 10

False light,Publication of private information ,Intrusion of privacy,Appropriation

Front 11

Know involuntary public figure doctrine in privacy. Why is not likely supreme court will do away with the involuntary public figure in privacy

Back 11

a) Photograph of innocent victim at the scene of a robbery. He was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
b) Cox Broadcasting Co v. Cohen: Cox broadcasted the name of a rape victim in Georgia. Georgia has a law prohibiting the release of such names; however, the name was made public once it was released in trial proceedings. The court ruled it would go against the 1st amendment to not allow publicize information that was already in the public domain.

Front 12

What is the 3-step method court’s use to evaluate whether publication of private matters has occurred? Be able to explain each part of the 3-part method.

Back 12

a) it’s illegal to publicize private information about a person if
i) The matter that is publicized:
ii) A. Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person
iii) B. Is not of legitimate concern or public interest. – outweighs embarrassment

Front 13

There are two methods of intrusion. What are they? Does Mississippi recognize both?

Back 13

a) Mississippi Recognizes Both:
i) Physical Intrusion- where you don’t have a right to be. (Hidden microphones, cameras etc)
ii) Private records-Intrusion into private records – tax records, hospital records Yes they do.

Front 14

Everyone has to show actual malice in False Light cases:
iCantrell v. Forest City Publishing Company
iBarney v. Best Medium
iii) Kent v. Pittsburgh Press:

Back 14

: Mr. Kent had gone to prison 20yrs before for murder. The press was printing some material & Kent came up in one paragraph stating he was in prison for murder. Unknown to the press a court had granted him a new trial. Kent sued for libel.
(1) Court said not actual malice since the reporter did not know.

Front 15

In what situations will consent NOT work as defense for appropriation?

Back 15

a) 1. People who can’t give consistent- minors or anyone who is mentally incompetent.
b) 2. Consent given today may not be valid 30 years from now.

Front 16

7) Know involuntary public figure doctrine in privacy. Why is not likely supreme court will do away with the involuntary public figure in privacy. Case b) Cox Broadcasting Co v. Cohen

Back 16

a) Photograph of innocent victim at the scene of a robbery. He was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
b) Cox Broadcasting Co v. Cohen: Cox broadcasted the name of a rape victim in Georgia. Georgia has a law prohibiting the release of such names; however, the name was made public once it was released in trial proceedings. The court ruled it would go against the 1st amendment to not allow publicize information that was already in the public domain.

Front 17

What is significant of Time v Hill case:

Back 17

a) In 1952, three escaped convicts took James Hill, his wife, and their five children hostage in their Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, home. After nineteen hours, the family was released unharmed. The convicts were later apprehended in a violent clash with police during which two of them were killed. In 1953, Joseph Hays' published a novel based on the Hill family's ordeal. When the novel was subsequently made into a play, Life Magazine ("Life") printed an article about the play that mirrored many of its inaccuracies concerning the Hill family's experience. Alleging that it deliberately misrepresented his story, Hill sought damages against Life. On appeal from an adverse ruling, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court remanded for a new trial where a reduced adverse ruling was imposed on Life. Following an unsuccessful appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted Life's owner, Time Inc. ("Time") certiorari.
b) Question: Is a publication, containing misrepresentations about the subject of its coverage, protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees?
c) Conclusion: Yes. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court set aside the Appellate ruling against Time because the lower court failed to instruct the jury that Time's liability was contingent upon a showing that it knowingly and recklessly published false statements about the Hill family. The Court explained that absent a finding of such malicious intent on the part of a publisher, press statements are protected under the First Amendment even if they are otherwise false or inaccurate. The Court remanded for retrial under the new jury instruction.

Front 18

Know how and when first laws or recognitions of right of privacy developed. (New York case and statute Georgia Case).

Back 18

a) Cox Broadcasting Co v. Cohen: Cox broadcasted the name of a rape victim in Georgia. Georgia has a law prohibiting the release of such names; however, the name was made public once it was released in trial proceedings. The court ruled it would go against the 1st amendment to not allow publicize information that was already in the public domain.
b) Roberson v. Folding Box Co: Abigail Roberson, whose picture was used without her permission in a flour advertisement, she sued, but the court ruled that “the so-called ‘right of privacy’ has not yet found an abiding place in our jurisprudence....”
(a) However, Roberson’s defeat in court quickly was turned into a victory in the New York legislature, which responded to a public outcry over the court decision by passing the nation’s first statutory law on privacy.

Front 19

12) What is right of publicity? How does it work? Know Zacchini case. Public records and publication of private matters. (Know cox broadcasting and other related cases)b) Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting and Sidis Case

Back 19

a) Right of Publicity: Protects the name, likeness & identity of a person.
b) Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (433 U.S. 562, 1977): Hugo Zacchini, who called himself “the human cannonball, had an “act” in which he was shot from a cannon into a net at fairs and other exhibitions. His entire “act” was filmed and broadcast as news by Scripps-Howard Broadcasting despite his objections to the filming. He sued for invasion of his right of publicity under Ohio law, but the state Supreme Court said the First Amendment precluded any recovery by Zacchini because the newscast covered a matter of “legitimate public interest.”
i) The case was returned to the Ohio courts, and Zacchini won his lawsuit. To deny him a right to sue when his entire act was broadcast without his consent would deny him the economic value of his performance, the state court said.
c) Sidis Case: Mr. Sidis was known as a child genius, was at Harvard at age 12 in 1920’s. Years later somebody wrote a story about him about how he eventually became a bum to get out of the lime light. He got so upset he killed himself.
i) Court did not care. He was in the public eye and it was of public interest. Heartless bastards.

Front 20

15) What employer/employee privilege? Use a Mississippi case to demonstrate how it works

Back 20

a) Young v. Jackson: Had an accident out at the nuclear plant, small spill nbd. Immediately after that, Mrs. Young went to the hospital. Everybody got scared. The real reason she went to the hospital for a hysterectomy. Employee’s got scared because they didn’t know and so the supervisor told them. Mrs. Young found out & sued.
i) Court ruled: Employer/Employee privilege: the employees had a need to know & it’s kept confidential. Young Lost milkaaawhhattt?