Ohio

Ohio courts recognize invasion of privacy claims for intrusion, private facts, and misappropriation but not false light. Yeager v. Local Union 20, 453 N.E.2d 666 (Ohio 1983).

Intrusion: A news broadcast about children victimized by their parents involvement with drugs included footage of a woman with her children at a drug raid. The woman, who alleged she was at the scene merely to pick up her children from their babysitter, stated claims for intrusion and defamation. Rogers v. Buckel, 615 N.E.2d 669 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992), review denied, 608 N.E.2d 1085 (Ohio 1993).

Filming a person in a public hallway outside a sheriffs office was not intrusion. Haynik v. Zimlich, 498 N.E.2d 1095 (Oh. Ct. Com. Pl. 1986).

ABC reporter Geraldo Rivera did not violate a then-existing state wiretap statute when he and a camera crew confronted a suspected "hit man." Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 932 F.2d 495 (6th Cir. 1991).

A woman who was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera, who secretly filmed and recorded the interview, could not sue for violation of the federal wiretap law because a then-current provision barring taping for "injurious purpose" was unconstitutionally vague and would likely inhibit reporting. Boddie v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 881 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1028 (1990).

Private facts: Broadcasting videotape of an innocent person wrongly arrested at a bar during a drug raid did not disclose private facts because the raid was a matter of legitimate public concern. Penwell v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 469 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).

The publication of police officer Fred E. Powells photograph in an article about substance abuse by officer Fred A. Powell was not a private fact because the photograph was a public record. Powell v. Toledo Blade Co., 19 Med. L. Rptr. 1727 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pls. 1991).

The publication of a photograph of three children and a policewoman fixing a flat bicycle tire, as part of a photograph spread that included nude pictures of the woman, did not disclose private facts about the children because the photo was taken on a public street while the children were in public view. Jackson v. Playboy Enterprises, 574 F. Supp. 10 (S.D. Ohio 1983).

False light: The publication of police officer Fred E. Powells photo in an article about substance abuse by officer Fred A. Powell was not false light because the cause of action is not recognized in Ohio. Powell v. Toledo Blade Co., 19 Med. L. Rptr. 1727 (Ohio Ct. C. P. 1991).

Misappropriation: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a news broadcast showing the entire 15-second act of a human cannonball violated his right to control publicity about himself. The Court emphasized that the entire act was shown, implying that it might not recognize a right to publicity claim for the use of something less than an entire act in a news program. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977).

A newspaper did not misappropriate the likeness of police officer Fred E. Powell in using his photograph to illustrate an article about substance abuse by officer Fred A. Powell; the photograph had no intrinsic value that the newspaper appropriated for its own benefit. Powell v. Toledo Blade Co., 19 Med. L. Rptr. 1727 (Ohio Ct. C. P. 1991).

A magazines incidental use of a mans wedding photograph in an article did not misappropriate anything of value beyond the value the man paced on his own likeness. Lusby v. Cincinnati Monthly Publishing Corp., 904 F.2d 707, 17 Med. L. Rptr. 1962 (6th Cir. 1990).

The incidental use in a "20/20" program of the likeness of a suspected "hit man" did not support a misappropriation claim because the matter was of legitimate public concern. Brooks v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 737 F. Supp. 431 (N.D. Ohio 1990), affd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 932 F.2d 495 (6th Cir. 1991).