Intro

1. Right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest o Instead, protects information and persons of which there is no legitimate social concern. Also protects those whose lives have been made public against their will o "public figures" may have renounced their privacy rights, at least as for certain info o Aims to protect the privacy of private life, protection is withdrawn when a man's life has ceased to be private (such as a man running for political office) o For all men, certain information should be kept private: private life, habits, acts, and relations of an individual, as to which society has no legitimate connection 2. Right to privacy as distinguished from right to keep privileged information secret o Existing law already covers this information, no need for overlap 3. No liability for oral revelation of private information; may violate freedom of speech 4. Right to privacy ceases upon the publication of the facts by that individual or w/ his consent 5. Truth is not a defense 6. No requirement of malice (similar to tort law; only concerned with the wrong/injury) REMEDIES: ALWAYS DAMAGES, plus injunction in limited class of cases

Article: Warren and Brandeis1.

Facts: The defendant, a Wal-Mart employee, stole a picture of plaintiffs naked in the shower when they asked for a roll of film to be developed. The plaintiffs later discovered that there were several copies of the picture circulating in the community and sued Wal-Mart for invasion of privacy torts. -Minnesota relies on common law and does not recognize the 4 privacy torts -Plaintiffs claim all 4 of the Prosser torts; which was an issue of first impression for Minnesota. Issue: Whether plaintiffs have a right to privacy? Holding: Court adopts all privacy torts EXCEPT false light; claims too close to tort of defamation. -Right to privacy recognized including causes of action for intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, and public disclosure of private facts; NOT false light.

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores (1998)

Facts: The New Yorker, a magazine published by F-R Publishing Corp (F-R) published a story on former public figures, titled "Where Are They Now?" The article commented extensively on plaintiffs desire to remain private and the lengths to which he went to hide from his past as a childhood prodigy. It described his dress, manner of speaking, living accommodations, and occupation as a clerk. The article was not derogatory toward Sidis, but represented him as having a "child-like charm." Sidis brought suit against F-R for invasion of his right of privacy, infringement of his civil rights, and malicious libel. Issue: Did the New Yorker invade Plaintiffs privacy by publishing a story on him? Holding: No invasion of privacy bc Sidis was a public figure and entitled to less privacy than average person. Once a public figure ALWAYS a public figure no matter the time that passes or if lifestyle changes. Rule: If within the realm of public interest, no matter how private or invasive, its newsworthy.

Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp. (1940) [Legitimate public concern; lapse of time]

1. Intrusion upon P's seclusion or solitude, or private affairs 2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts 3. Publicity that places a P in a false light in the public eye 4. Appropriation of P's likeness for D's advantage

William Prosser -Privacy: 4 Invasion of Privacy torts