In most states, you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. For example, writing about a person's HIV status, sexual orientation, or financial troubles could lead to liability for publication of private facts. However, the law protects you when you publish information that is newsworthy, regardless of whether someone else would like you to keep that information private. In addition, the law protects you if you publish information already exposed to the public eye and especially material obtained from publicly available court records. Despite the law's substantial protections for legitimate reporting on matters of public interest, it is a good practice to obtain consent before publishing sensitive private information about someone.
Only human beings, and not corporations or other organizations, can sue for publication of private facts. Publication of private facts is a type of invasion of privacy, and you cannot invade the privacy of a dead person. Therefore, an estate cannot sue you for publishing private facts about a dead person, unless your publication took place before the person in question died. Note, however, that members of a dead person's family may be able to sue in their own right if you disclose private facts that relate to them too.
A plaintiff must establish four elements to hold someone liable for publication of private facts:
1. Public Disclosure: The disclosure of facts must be public. Another way of saying this is that the defendant must "give publicity" to the fact or facts in question.
2. Private Fact: The fact or facts disclosed must be private, and not generally known.
3. Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Publication of the private facts in question must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
4. Not Newsworthy: The facts disclosed must not be newsworthy. Stated differently, the facts disclosed must not be a matter of legitimate public concern.
Below, we address these elements in greater detail. Keep in mind that publication of private facts is a state-law legal claim, so there is some variation of the law in different states. For state-specific information, see State Law: Publication of Private Facts.
A plaintiff bringing a publication of private facts claim must show that the defendant made a public disclosure of the fact or facts in question. This means communication to the public at large, or to so many people that the matter must be regarded as likely to become public knowledge. As a general matter, publication of information on a website or blog (or any other publicly available platform on the Internet) will satisfy this element. On the other hand, it might not be a public disclosure if you simply convey private information about someone in an email to one or two other people, so long as it is understood that the information is not meant for further dissemination to the public.
A plaintiff bringing a publication of private facts claim must show that the defendant disclosed a private fact. This means pretty much what it sounds like. A private fact is an intimate detail of one's private life that is not generally known. Common examples of private facts include information about medical conditions, sexual orientation and history, and financial status. It may also include things like someone's social security or phone number, if that information is not ordinarily publicly available. A plaintiff has no privacy interest with respect to a matter that is already public. Thus, you cannot be held liable for discussing or republishing information about someone that is already publicly available (e.g., found on the Internet or in the newspaper). For instance, a few years ago, Robert Steinbuch, a former Congressional aide sued Jessica Cutler, another former Congressional aide, for publishing information about their private sexual relations on her blog, Washingtonienne. Steinbuch also sued Anna Marie Cox of Wonkette for calling attention to Cutler's blog and making the story spread around the Internet like wildfire. Steinbuch's claim against Cutler may have some merit because she disclosed on her blog embarrassing information about him that was not publicly available, but the case has yet to be decided. See our database entry, Steinbuch v. Cutler for details. On the other hand, the court dismissed Steinbuch's publication of private facts claim against Cox because she did nothing but blog about a matter that was already public. (Cox's lawyers do an excellent job of arguing the point in this brief.)
In addition, you cannot be held liable for giving publicity to a matter that the plaintiff leaves open to the public eye. For example, when the man who helped stop an assassination attempt on President Ford sued two newspapers for revealing that he was a homosexual, the court denied him relief, finding that his sexual orientation and participation in gay community activities was already widely known by hundreds of people in a variety of cities. The record showed that, prior to the publication in question, the plaintiff had frequented gay bars, participated in gay pride parades, and that his friendship with Harvey Milk (a prominent gay figure) was well-known and publicized in gay newspapers. This, in the court's view, was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had left his sexual orientation open to the public eye. See Sipple v. Chronicle Publ'g Co., 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). In another case, a stripper sued ABC for publishing private facts about her when the television show 20/20 aired a program about the allegedly illegal activities of several persons associated with the strip bar where she worked. The plaintiff appeared in a few shots of the TV program dancing nude in the background. The court held that the plaintiff did not have a valid claim for publication of private facts because her stripping activity was open to the public eye; anyone who paid the $5.00 cover charge could see her performing her work. See Puckett v. American Broad. Co., 1990 WL 170425 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 1990). In a more recent case, several Navy SEALs sued the Associated Press for publishing photographs of them potentially abusing Iraqi captives. The court held that the images were not private because the plaintiffs were members of the military on active duty conducting wartime operations in full uniform and chose to allow their activities to be photographed and placed on the Internet. See Four Navy Seals v. Associated Press, 413 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2005).
As the latter two cases suggest, a person's photograph or image can be a "private fact," but generally not when it is captured in a public or semi-public place. Therefore, you can generally publish photographs of an individual or individuals taken in public places without liability for publication of private facts. For example, in Gilbert v. Hearst Pub. Co., 253 P.2d 441(Cal. 1953), the court held that a newspaper was not liable for invasion of privacy through publication of private facts when it published a photograph of a couple kissing at the farmer's market in San Francisco. Note, however, that publishing photographs of other people, even if taken in public, may result in liability for unauthorized use of name or likeness. See Using the Name or Likeness of Another for details. And, if you intrude into a private place in order to photograph or record someone, you could be held liable for intrusion. See Gathering Private Information for details.
A plaintiff bringing a publication of private facts claim must show that, under the circumstances, publishing the facts in question would have been highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. The question is not whether the plaintiff himself/herself found the public disclosure highly offensive, but whether an ordinary person reflecting community mores would find it so. Thus, the law does not give special solicitude to a plaintiff with a "thin skin." As the Restatement of Torts explains:
Complete privacy does not exist in this world except in a desert, and anyone who is not a hermit must expect and endure the ordinary incidents of the community life of which he is a part. Thus he must expect the more or less casual observation of his neighbors as to what he does, and that his comings and goings and his ordinary daily activities, will be described in the press as a matter of casual interest to others. The ordinary reasonable man does not take offense at a report in a newspaper that he has returned from a visit, gone camping in the woods or given a party at his house for his friends. Even minor and moderate annoyance, as for example through public disclosure of the fact that the plaintiff has clumsily fallen downstairs and broken his ankle, is not sufficient to give him a cause of action under the rule stated in this Section. It is only when the publicity given to him is such that a reasonable person would feel justified in feeling seriously aggrieved by it, that the cause of action arises.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 263D cmt. c. Some examples of activities found to be highly offensive include publishing a photograph of a woman nursing a child or posing nude in a bathtub, displaying a movie of a woman's caesarian operation, and disseminating a video showing two celebrities having sex. Some activities found not to be highly offensive include publishing an accurate account of a private wedding, publishing a photograph of a couple kissing in public, and publishing photographs of military personnel showing potential prisoner abuse.
Newsworthiness is ordinarily the most important issue in a publication of private facts case. In many states, a plaintiff bringing a publication of private facts claim must show affirmatively that the facts disclosed were not newsworthy -- i.e., they were not a matter of legitimate public concern. In other states, the defendant must raise newsworthiness as a defense. Many courts hold that publishers have a constitutional privilege to publish truthful information on a matter of legitimate public concern. In any event, you ordinarily cannot he held liable for disclosing private facts about someone so long as those facts are of legitimate public concern.
Defining what is a matter of legitimate public interest can be tricky. But, courts generally are reluctant to second-guess the media, and they therefore take a very broad view of newsworthiness. Courts have held that there is a legitimate public interest in nearly all recent events, as well as in the private lives of prominent figures such as movie stars, politicians, and professional athletes. Thus, newsworthy publications include those "concerning homicide and other crimes, arrests, police raids, suicides, marriages and divorces, accidents, fires, catastrophes of nature, a death from the use of narcotics, a rare disease, the birth of a child to a twelve-year-old girl, the reappearance of one supposed to have been murdered years ago, a report to the police concerning the escape of a wild animal and many other similar matters of genuine, even if more or less deplorable, popular appeal." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 263D cmt. Moreover, the protection for newsworthy publications extends beyond the dissemination of "news" in the sense of current events or commentary upon public affairs. It extends also to "information concerning interesting phases of human activity and embraces all issues about which information is needed or appropriate so that individuals may cope with the exigencies of their period." Campbell v. Seabury Press, 614 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1980). Thus, courts have found to be newsworthy articles dealing with unique love relationships, an Indian rope trick, the whereabouts and living conditions of a former child prodigy, and the peculiar personal characteristics of Bush campaign volunteers.
Despite the broad scope of potentially newsworthy topics, you risk losing your protection from liability if you exceed the bounds of common decency: "The line is to be drawn when the publicity ceases to be the giving of information to which the public is entitled, and becomes a morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake, with which a reasonable member of the public, with decent standards, would say that he had no concern." Virgil v. Time, Inc., 527 F.2d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 1975). The courts agree that most facts about public officials and celebrities are of legitimate public concern, but they also recognize that even famous public figures retain a zone of privacy relating to things like sexual activity and medical information. Ordinary people may become "involuntary public figures" when they take part in an event or occurrence of public significance, such as a crime, an accident, or a spontaneous act of heroism. When this happens, many facts about their lives become legitimately newsworthy, like their home addresses and information about their education, upbringing, and family. The media is allowed to use colorful facts about newsworthy individuals to create a thorough and compelling portrayal, so long as there is some logical connection between the facts disclosed and the matter of legitimate public interest. Accordingly, a court has held that information about a physician's psychiatric history and marital life was substantially relevant to the newsworthy topic of policing failures in the medical profession, when the physician in question had committed two acts of alleged malpractice. See Gilbert v. Medical Economics Co., 665 F.2d 305 (10th Cir. 1981). Similarly, a court held that a newspaper could legitimately publish the name and address of the father of a person who was being questioned as a suspect in the rape of a young girl. See Strutner v. Dispatch Printing Co., 442 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). In yet another example, a court held that a woman could not successfully sue over a photograph of her walking on the grounds of a private psychiatric hospital when she was walking next to a famous fellow patient whose "mental and physical rehabilitation was clearly newsworthy." Howell v. New York Post Co., 181 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992).
On the other hand, sometimes the connection between disclosed private facts and a topic of admitted public interest is too attenuated. In one case, a court held that the disclosed fact that a student political leader was a transsexual was not of legitimate public concern, even though the disclosure happened in connection with a series of newsworthy articles about the student leader (she was the first female student body president at the college in question). See Diaz v. Oakland Tribune, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 3d 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). The court reasoned that there was no connection between the plaintiff's gender status and her fitness for office or any other relevant issue, and that her position did not warrant opening up her entire private life to public inspection. Moreover, the court perceived that the reporter in question was making a joke at the plaintiff's expense, which did not help his case. In another case, a court held that a surfer could take his publication of private facts claim to trial where he established that a magazine published information about embarrassing incidents from his personal history. While the overall topic of the offending article (body surfing at a famous California beach) was newsworthy, the court ruled that a jury would be entitled to conclude that information about the plaintiff's non-surfing life was not newsworthy. See Virgil v. Time, Inc., 527 F.2d 1122 (9th Cir. 1975).
The passage of time might also affect whether a private fact is newsworthy. Facts that might be considered newsworthy at the time of the event will not necessarily remain so months or years later. This sometimes comes up with information about past crimes. Some courts have held that information about an individual's commission of a crime in the remote past is not a matter of legitimate public concern when that individual has completely rehabilitated himself/herself. However, other courts have rejected this view, so long as there is some connection to a topic of continuing interest. Nevertheless, you may want to think twice about publishing private information about someone who used to be an important public figure, but who now has faded into obscurity.
In Cox Broadcasting v. Cohen, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits states from imposing a penalty on the press for publishing accurate information obtained from a public court record. As a result of this case, most states recognize an absolute privilege for publication of information found in a publicly available (i.e., not sealed) court record. While the case involved traditional media, there is no reason to believe that its reasoning and holding would not extend to non-traditional journalists and other online publishers. This means that you cannot be held liable for publishing accurate facts about someone that you find in a public court record, regardless of how embarrassing they are. Note that this privilege will protect you in publishing information about past crimes (discussed above), so long as you gather your information from publicly available court records, such as an indictment or trial transcript. For information on accessing court records, see Access to Courts and Court Records.
Many states have extended this protection from liability to the publication of information found in "public records" in addition to court records. The exact meaning of "public records" varies, but in some states it includes information obtained from government agencies through state freedom of information requests. See State Law: Publication of Private Facts for details on the scope of the First Amendment privilege and Access to Government Records for information on freedom of information requests.
Consent is a complete defense to a legal claim for publication of private facts. When you interview someone to gather information for later publication, it is a good practice to ask for consent to use the material on your website, blog, or other online platform. Make sure to get consent in writing whenever possible. You can use an interview release form. This release can help protect you against misappropriation and right of publicity claims in addition to publication of private facts claims. Some examples of interview releases can be found in Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use Guide, and at EmilioCorsetti.com and the University of Michigan Press. You can find additional samples by doing a basic Internet search for "interview release," and the book The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook by Lloyd J. Jassin and Steven C. Schecter has two excellent examples. An interview release can take various forms; you will need to choose and customize one to suit your own purposes. Make sure to mention explicitly your intent to use information conveyed during the interview for publication on the Internet.
If you take photographs of someone for later publication, you should also consider getting a model release. A model release primarily protects you against claims of unlawful use of name or likeness, but it also may be helpful if you photograph an individual in a private setting or if a photograph otherwise reveals private information. You can find examples at Ourmedia, the American Society of Media Photographers (model release for adult, model release for minor child, simplified model release, and pocket release), and the New York Institute of Photography. As above, you will need to customize the release to fit your purposes and circumstances.
Children cannot consent on their own behalf. When using the name or likeness of a minor (generally someone under the age of eighteen), you should seek consent from the minor's parent. Some of the example release forms linked to above are geared toward getting the consent of minors. State laws may recognize other situations where individuals are not able to consent on their own behalf. For instance, imagine you come across the scene of an accident and find a half-conscious accident victim. You might seek the consent of that individual to take pictures and ride along with him or her in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Depending on state law, a court might not recognize consent provided by such a half-conscious and obviously traumatized individual.
Keep in mind that people giving you consent can revoke (i.e., take back) that consent anytime before the use of their name or photograph takes place. Therefore, you should honor the decisions of consenting persons who suddenly change their minds, so long as publication hasn't already taken place.
The "statute of limitations" is a term used by courts to describe the maximum amount of time plaintiffs can wait before bringing a lawsuit after the events they are suing over took place. This time limit is set by state law and is intended to promote fairness and keep old cases from clogging the courts. In publication of private facts cases, the statute of limitations ordinarily runs from the date of first publication of the offending facts. The limitations period varies based on state law; usually it is between one and three years. See the state pages for the applicable term in your state.
Each state has its own definition of what constitutes invasion of privacy through the publication of private facts. Choose from the list below to determine whether your state recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts, and, if so, how it defines the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. (Note that the guide does not include every state at this time.)
It is not clear whether Arizona recognizes a claim for publication of private facts. Although the Court of Appeals of Arizona discussed possible elements of a publication of private facts claim in Rutledge v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 715 P.2d 1243 (Ariz. App. 1986), the Court noted that Arizona precedent regarding the existence of such a claim was not settled. Id. at 1246 n. 3; see also Cluff v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 460 P.2d 666, 669 (Ariz. App. 1969) (noting that Arizona "possibly" recognizes a claim for publication of private facts).
The only Arizona Supreme Court case to discuss the elements of a private facts claim indicated that "[a] person who unreasonably and seriously interferes with another's interest in not having his affairs known to others" might be held liable for invasion of privacy. Reed v. Real Detective Pub. Co., 162 P.2d 133, 137 (Ariz. 1945). However, at least one court has indicated that this description of the claim is outdated. Rutledge, 715 P.2d at 1246 n.3. If Arizona were to recognize a claim for publication of private facts, the Arizona Supreme Court would likely follow the generally accepted elements for a such a claim.
The Arizona Supreme Court has recognized that privacy rights are absent or limited “in connection with the life of a person in whom the public has a rightful interest, [or] where the information would be of public benefit.” Accordingly, the Court has held in a related context that public servants have no right to privacy concerning the performance of their public lives or duties. Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 783 P.2d 781, 789 (Ariz. 1989) (claim for false light invasion of privacy).
The Arizona Supreme Court has not addressed the question of whether liability for publication of private facts may be imposed for dissemination of information in the public record. However, in the context of a claim for false light invasion of privacy, at least one Arizona court has recognized a privilege against liability for reporting information from the public record as long as the report is a fair and accurate abridgment of the records used. Sallomi v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 771 P.2d 469, 472 (Ariz. App. 1989).
The Arizona Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the question of whether the consent of the person whose information is published is a defense to a private facts claim. The Court has, however, recognized in another privacy-related context that that consent is a defense, and also that a plaintiff who has become a “public character” may be found to have waived his privacy rights. Reed v. Real Detective Pub. Co., 162 P.2d 133, 138 (Ariz. 1945). It is not clear if a "public character" is the same as a "public figure" for the purposes of defamation law (scroll down).
The statute of limitations for any privacy claim in Arizona is 2 years. A.R.S. § 12-542.
In California, the elements of a publications of private facts claim are: (1) public disclosure; (2) of a private fact; (3) which would be offensive and objectionable to the reasonable person; and (4) which is not of legitimate public concern. California is notable for also requiring a plaintiff to show that the defendant published private facts "with reckless disregard for the fact that reasonable men would find the invasion highly offensive." Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 4 Cal. 3d 529 (1971), overruled on other grounds by Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc., 101 P.3d 552 (Cal. 2004).
This requirement gives you extra protection against a private facts claim. It means that a plaintiff must show more than that you were simply wrong in believing publication of the facts in question was not offensive; the plaintiff must show that you entertained serious doubts about its offensiveness and decided to publish the facts in question anyway. In a court, this would involve examination of your state of mind at the time of the publication.
Under California law, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove that the facts published were not a matter of legitimate public concern; otherwise, the claim fails. The courts consider three factors when deciding whether facts are of legitimate public concern: (1) the social value of the facts published; (2) the depth of the intrusion into ostensibly private affairs; and (3) the extent to which the plaintiff voluntarily assumed a position of public notoriety. Most facts about celebrities and public officials are considered matters of legitimate public concern. Private facts about ordinary people involved in events or occurrences of public significance are of legitimate public concern if they bear a reasonable relationship to the newsworthy topic. Courts applying California law have found the following information, among other things, to be newsworthy (i.e., of legitimate public concern):
In contrast, courts applying California law have found the following things, among others, to be potentially non-newsworthy:
For discussion of additional cases, see the Reporters Committee's Photographers' Guide to Privacy: California.
In California, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from government records that are open to public inspection. For example, in Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc., 101 P.3d 552 (Cal. 2004), the California Supreme Court held that a news organization could not be held liable for broadcasting truthful information obtained from official court records about the plaintiff's past criminal history. So far, California courts have only applied this rule to information obtained from court records, but the protection could apply to other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
California recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. California courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should record try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in California is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations in California for publication of private facts claims is not entirely clear. A number of California court decisions applying California law have held that the one-year statute of limitations for libel actions applies to claims for invasion of privacy, which includes claims for publication of private facts. The statute of limitations for libel actions is found at Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.
Florida recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in Florida is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of Florida law that are different from the general description.
In Florida, the elements of a publications of private facts claim are: (1) the publication; (2) of private facts; (3) that are offensive; and (4) are not of public concern.
Florida law does not impose liability for publication of facts that are of legitimate public concern. The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that this "newsworthiness" exception presents a "formidable obstacle" for a plaintiff bringing an invasion of privacy lawsuit. Hitchner v. Cape Publication, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1374, 1377 (Fla. 1989). This exception to liability is very broad; without question, this covers things like current events of public significance and information about the actors who take part in them. It also covers "soft news" and other human interest portrayals and accounts.
The courts have recognized, however, that individuals maintain a zone of privacy relating to certain sensitive personal matters. As a general rule, private facts about public officials and celebrities are more likely of legitimate public interest than private facts about ordinary people who get involuntarily caught up in newsworthy events.
Courts applying Florida law have found the following things, among others, to be newsworthy (i.e., of legitimate public concern):
In contrast, one Florida court held that a plaintiff stated a cause of action for publication of private facts when she alleged that a TV program had broadcast an interview with her about her unfortunate plastic surgery experience without disguising her voice and concealing her face as promised. The court rejected the argument that the information disclosed in the interview was newsworthy, concluding that "while the topic of the broadcast was of legitimate public concern, the plaintiff's identity was not." Doe v. Univision Television Group, Inc., 717 So.2d 63, 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).
For additional information and discussion of Florida cases, see the Reporters Committee's Photographers' Guide to Privacy: Florida and the Florida Bar's Reporter's Handbook.
In Florida, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from government records that are open to public inspection. So far, Florida courts have applied this protection to information obtained from court records (and from proceedings in open court), but it could apply to other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
Florida recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. Florida courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should record try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Florida is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations for publication of private facts claims in Florida is four years. See Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(p).
Georgia recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in Georgia is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of Georgia law that are different from the general description.
In Georgia, the elements of a publication of private facts claim are: (1) the disclosure of private facts must be a public disclosure; (2) the facts disclosed to the public must be private, secluded or secret facts and not public ones; and (3) the matter made public must be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities under the circumstances.
Georgia law does not impose liability for publication of information that is of legitimate public concern or newsworthy. Wilson v. Thurman, 445 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). Georgia courts have repeatedly affirmed that reporting about issues concerning crime and criminal investigations are matters of public interest and cannot support a claim of invasion of privacy.
For example, courts applying Georgia law have found the following things, among others, to be of legitimate public concern (i.e., newsworthy):
In contrast, a Georgia appellate court affirmed the award of damages to a plaintiff whose identity as an AIDS patient was disclosed in a television program about AIDS. The court cited legislative enactments that protected persons against the disclosure of confidential AIDS information and reasoned that in each prior case which had rejected a claim for publication of private facts based upon the public interest of the subject matter, the information disclosed concerned a “criminal incident or investigation.” Multimedia WMAZ v. Kubach, 443 S.E.2d 491, 494-95 (Ga. App. Ct. 1994).
For additional information and discussion of Georgia cases, see the Reporters Committee's Photographers' Guide to Privacy: Georgia.
In Georgia, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information obtained from government records open to public inspection. Courts have applied this protection to information obtained from court records and statements made before a public body, but it could apply to other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
Georgia recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. Georgia courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Georgia is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations for publication of private facts claims in Georgia is two years. See Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-33 (2006).
Illinois recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in Illinois is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of Illinois law that are different from the general description.
In Illinois, the elements of a publications of private facts claim are: (1) publicity was given to private facts; (2) the facts were private and not public facts; and (3) the matter made public would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Illinois law does not impose liability for invasion of privacy when the invasion is deemed newsworthy or is a matter of legitimate public concern. Persons performing official duties for the government have no right of privacy as to information concerning discharge of those duties. Cassidy v. Am. Broad. Cos., 377 N.E.2d 126, 132 (1st. Dist. 1978). In addition, courts applying Illinois law have found the following things, among others, to be newsworthy:
In contrast, an Illinois court has held that a jury reasonably could find that a photograph of a woman's dead son (killed by gunshot wound in a gang-related incident) and her statements to his expired corpse in a private hospital room were not of legitimate public concern, even though the general topic of gang violence was newsworthy. It reasoned that the jury could determine that the newspaper did not need the plaintiff's intimate statements to her son or his photograph to convey the human suffering behind gang violence. See Green v. Chicago Tribune, 675 N.E.2d 249 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).
In Illinois, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gleaned from public records which include, for example, criminal records and divorce decrees. The protection could apply to information obtained from other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
Illinois recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. Illinois courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should record try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Illinois is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s). See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations in Illinois for publication of private facts claim is one year. See 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-201.
Whether Indiana recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts is unsettled. Before 1997, Indiana's lower courts recognized a such a claim. But, in Doe v. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. 1997), two Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana law did not recognize a legal claim for publication of private facts, while three other Justices agreed with the result in the case but not with their reasoning. Later courts have disagreed on whether this claim still exists in Indiana.
To the extent that Indiana law still recognizes a publication of private facts claim, it is generally similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of Indiana law that are different from the general description.
If Indiana still recognizes a private facts claim, the elements are: (1) a public disclosure of private information concerning the plaintiff that would be highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities; (2) to persons who have no legitimate interest in the information; (3) in a manner that is coercive and oppressive.
Indiana law does not impose liability for publication of facts that are of legitimate public interest. Nobles v. Cartwright, 659 N.E.2d 1064, 1073 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Courts applying Indiana law have found the following things to be of legitimate public interest (i.e., newsworthy):
In Indiana, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from government records that are open to public inspection, but there is little case law on this subject. This protection applies most commonly to information obtained in court records, but it would likely apply to other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
Indiana recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. Indiana courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should record try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Indiana is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
Assuming that Indiana still recognizes a publication of private facts claim, the statute of limitations in Indiana is two years. See Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4.
Massachusetts recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts based on Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 1B, which proscribes "unreasonable, substantial or serious interference" with one's privacy. For the most part, the law in Massachusetts is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of Massachusetts law that are different from the general description.
In Massachusetts, a publication of private facts claim requires proof of a publication of facts of a "highly personal or intimate nature" which are "of no business of the public." In contrast to several other jurisdictions, the disclosure need not be made to the public at large and a disclosure to two people has been found sufficient to warrant relief under § 1B. Offensiveness to a reasonable person is not one of the statutory criteria under § 1B, but Massachusetts courts consider publication of private information "of no business to the public" to be "offensive." See Cefalu v. Globe Newspaper Co., 391 N.E.2d 935, 939 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). Massachusetts courts have rejected a number of invasion of privacy claims based on conduct taking place in public locations because the facts in question were not private. See the general description for more information on the elements of a private facts claim.
Massachusetts law does not impose liability for publication of information that is of legitimate public concern or newsworthy. Peckham v. Boston Herald, Inc., 719 N.E.2d 888, 892-94 (Mass App. Ct. 1999). For example, courts applying Massachusetts law have found the following things, among others, to be of legitimate public concern (i.e., newsworthy):
In contrast, Massachusetts courts have found that confidential medical information is not a matter of legitimate public concern and have upheld an invasion of privacy claim based on a report publishing unsubstantiated ten-year-old investigation material about the plaintiff, a public figure.
In Massachusetts, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from government records that are open to public inspection. So far, Massachusetts courts have applied this protection to information obtained from court records, but it would likely apply to other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
Massachusetts recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. Massachusetts courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Massachusetts is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s). See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations for publication of private facts claims in Massachusetts is three years. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A.
Michigan recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in Michigan is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of Michigan law that are different from the general description.
In Michigan, a cause of action for public disclosure of private facts requires the disclosure of (1) private information that is not already a matter of public record or otherwise open to the public eye; (2) that is of no legitimate concern to the public; and (3) the publication of which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Michigan law does not impose liability for publishing facts that are of legitimate public concern or newsworthy. Courts applying Michigan law have found the following things to be of legitimate public concern (i.e., newsworthy):
In contrast, a Michigan appellate court held that, even though the topic of abortion is a matter of public interest, the identities of patients actually undergoing the procedure were not. See Doe v. Mills, 536 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). Similarly, another court held that, while the general topic of a newspaper article -- unique love relationships -- was of legitimate public concern, the specific facts disclosed about the plaintiff -- including that she had several abortions, engaged in partner swapping, and was involved in a surrogate parenting relationship with her former husband and her maid of honor -- were not necessarily newsworthy. See Winstead v. Sweeney, 517 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
In Michigan, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from government records that are open to public inspection. This includes court records and other government records that place information before the public eye.
Michigan recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. Michigan courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should record try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Michigan is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
There is no statute of limitations for an invasion of privacy claim in Michigan, but a publication of private facts claim would likely be governed by the general three-year statute of limitations for negligence claims. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(8).
Missouri was one of the first states to recognize a legal claim for the publication of private facts. Barber v. Time, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 291 (Mo. 1942). For the most part, the law in Missouri is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of Missouri law that are different from the general description.
In Missouri, a publication of private facts claim requires proof of: (1) publication or "publicity" (2) absent any waiver or privilege, (3) of private matters in which the public has no legitimate concern, (4) so as to bring shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities." Y.G. v. Jewish Hosp. of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
Missouri law defines "publicity" as a disclosure made to the general public or likely to reach the general public. Missouri courts have treated the oral disclosure of private facts in a public setting as sufficient "publicity" to give rise to potential liability. See Biederman's of Springfield, Inc. v. Wright, 322 S.W.2d 892 (Mo. 1959).
Missouri law recognizes a distinction between newsworthy events and "private matters" in which the public has no legitimate concern. While a topic might be newsworthy, however, this does not mean that every individual's connection or participation in that matter is newsworthy. For example, the Missouri Supreme Court held that while a plaintiff's unusual medical condition may have been a matter of public interest and thereby newsworthy, her identity was a private matter. See Barber v. Time, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 291 (Mo. 1942). Likewise, the success of a hospital's in vitro fertilization program was newsworthy, but the identity of plaintiffs participating in the program was a private matter. See Y.G. v. Jewish Hosp. of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). Missouri courts have consistently ruled that medical conditions and hospital stays are private facts.
Where the police, public bodies, or legal institutions are involved, the matter will likely be one of public interest. Buller v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 684 S.W.2d 473 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
Certain details about an individual's life may fall into the public interest through legal action, police activity, or the action of other public bodies (even if that individual had no intention of making them known to the public). In Williams v. KCMO Broadcasting Div. Meredith Corp., 472 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971), a man was filmed being put into a police car after he was arrested with five others. During a broadcast of the footage, commentary stated that three of the men would be charged in connection with a crime. Even though the plaintiff did not participate in a crime and was released without being charged, the court held that he did not have a cause of action for invasion of privacy.
If another media outlet has already disclosed information about an individual, that information will not be considered private for the purposes of a subsequent publication by another publisher. However, this does not apply to information not contained in the original publication. See Barber v. Time, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 291 (1942).
Missouri law requires plaintiffs to show that a publication shows a "serious, unreasonable, unwarranted and offensive invasion of private affiars" before damages can be awarded. Barber v. Time, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 291 (1942). Because of this requirement, a Missouri court noted that the state "places a heavier burden on the plaintiff than do many of the other jurisdictions." Williams v. KCMO Broad. Div. Meredith Corp., 472 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971).
In Missouri, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information that is a matter of public record. A federal court applying Missouri law held that a publication of private facts claim could not be based on information revealed in open court proceedings. See McNally v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 532 F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1976). A Missouri court applied this protection to information revealed in an open meeting of a city council. See Boeke v. Williams, 721 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). It would likely apply to information obtained from other public government records as well.
Missouri appears to recognize waiver (or consent) as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. However, courts have not addressed this issue in depth.
Missouri does not provide a statute of limitations period specific to the filing of an invasion of privacy actions, but has a general statute of limitations of five years. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120. This five-year statute of limitations likely applies to causes of action for the publication of private facts. In defamation cases, Missouri applies a statute of limitations of two years. Mo. Rev. § 516.140. Missouri courts have applied this two-year statute of limitations when plaintiffs have attempted to sue for false light or invasion of privacy, but the court determines that the plaintiff's claim is actually one for defamation. See Sullivan v. Pulitzer Broad. Co., 709 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. 1986).
New Jersey recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in New Jersey is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of New Jersey law that are different from the general description.
In New Jersey, the elements of a publication of private facts claim are: (1) the matter or matters revealed were actually private; (2) dissemination of such facts would be offensive to a reasonable person; and (3) there is no legitimate public interest in being apprised of the facts publicized.
New Jersey law does not impose liability for publication of factually accurate information that is "newsworthy" or of legitimate public concern. Courts applying New Jersey law have found the following things, among others, to be of legitimate public concern (i.e., newsworthy):
For additional information and discussion of New Jersey cases, see the Reporters Committee's Photographers' Guide to Privacy: New Jersey.
In New Jersey, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from "public records." Not all government records will qualify as "public records," and the extent of the privilege is not clear. So far, New Jersey courts have applied this privilege to information obtained from court records (and from proceedings in open court), as well as to a claim for disability benefits filed with an administrative agency. In any event, information gathered from any kind of government record that is open to public inspection is unlikely to be a private fact because it is already exposed to the public eye.
New Jersey recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. New Jersey courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should record try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in New Jersey is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s). See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
New Jersey applies the one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims to publication of private facts claims as well. See N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:14-3.
North Carolina does not recognize a legal claim for the publication of private facts. See Hall v. Salisbury Post, 372 S.E.2d 711 (N.C. 1988). However, the North Carolina Supreme Court has suggested that a plaintiff might be able to bring an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under some circumstances involving the publication of embarrassing private facts.
In Ohio, the elements of a publication of private facts claim are: (1) a public disclosure; (2) the facts disclosed must concern the private life of an individual, not his or her public life; (3) the matter disclosed must be one which would be highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities; (4) the disclosure must have been made intentionally, not negligently; and (5) the matter disclosed must not be of legitimate concern to the public.
Ohio law does not impose liability for publication of factually accurate information that is "newsworthy" or of legitimate public concern. Examples of things that Ohio courts have considered to be of legitimate public concern or newsworthy include:
For additional information and discussion of Ohio cases, see the Reporters Committee's Photographers' Guide to Privacy: Ohio.
In Ohio, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from government records that are open to public inspection. So far, Ohio courts have applied this protection to information obtained from court records, police personnel files, and Internal Affairs Department files, but it would likely apply to other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
Ohio recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. Ohio courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Ohio is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations for invasion of privacy claims in Ohio is four years. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.9(D).
Pennsylvania recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in Pennsylvania is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of Pennsylvania law that are different from the general description.
In Pennsylvania, the elements of a publication of private facts claim are: (1) publicity given to (2) private facts, (3) which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (4) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
Pennsylvania law does not impose liability for publication of factually accurate information that is "newsworthy" or of legitimate public concern. Pennsylvania courts consider information newsworthy when it concerns "relatively current events such as in the common experience are likely to be of public interest." Jenkins v. Dell Publ'g Co., 251 F.2d 447, 451 (3d Cir. 1958).
Courts applying Pennsylvania law have found the following things to be of legitimate public concern or newsworthy:
In contrast, one court held that a photograph of a woman in a bathtub was not newsworthy because many people engage in bathing on a daily basis and the media generally does not consider it worth reporting publicly. McCabe v. Vill. Voice, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 525, 530-31, n.10 (D.C.Pa. 1982).
For additional information and discussion of Pennsylvania cases, see the Reporters Committee's Photographers' Guide to Privacy: Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania law recognizes a constitutional privilege for publishing truthful facts contained in public records. So far, Pennsylvania courts have applied this protection to information obtained from court records, but it would likely apply to other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
Pennsylvania recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. Pennsylvania courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Pennsylvania is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations for a publication of private facts claims in Pennsylvania is one year. See Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5523(1).
Texas recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in Texas is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. Here, we will address only those aspects of Texas law that are different from the general description.
In Texas, in order to recover for public disclosure of private facts, a plaintiff must show that (1) publicity was given to matters concerning his or her private life; (2) the publication of these facts would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities; and (3) the matter publicized was not of legitimate public concern.
Texas law does not impose liability for publication of information that is of legitimate public concern or newsworthy. A federal court applying Texas law has indicated that "reports of the investigation of crimes or matters pertaining to criminal activity have almost without exception been held to be newsworthy or matters of public interest as a matter of law." Lowe v. Hearst Communications, Inc., 487 F.3d 246, 250 (5th Cir. 2007)
Texas courts have found the following things, among others, to be of legitimate public concern or newsworthy:
In addition, a photograph that was published in a newspaper that accidentally revealed a high school soccer player's genitalia was protected because the photograph accurately depicted a public, newsworthy event. The court reasoned the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution provided the newspaper with immunity from liability for damages. McNamara v. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 802 S.W.2d 901, 905 (Tex. App. 1991)
For additional information and discussion of Texas cases, see the Reporters Committee's Photographers' Guide to Privacy: Texas.
In Texas, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from government records that are open to public inspection. So far, Texas courts have applied this protection to information revealed in open court proceedings and contained in police records, but it would likely apply to other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
Texas recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. Texas courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Texas is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations for a publication of private facts claim in Texas is two years. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a).
Washington recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. The law in Washington is likely similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts, but few Washington cases deal directly with this legal claim. This page addresses those aspects of Washington law, to the extent it is known, that are different from the general description.
In Washington, the elements of a publication of private facts claim are: (1) public disclosure (2) of a matter concerning the private life of another (3) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (4) that is not of legitimate concern to the public.
Washington law does not impose liability for publication of information that is of legitimate public concern or newsworthy. In one case, a Washington court indicated that the circumstances of the death of a young woman found naked on the side of the road were a matter of "immediate public concern" even though neither the woman nor her parents were public figures. See Moloney v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 613 P.2d 1179 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). Washington courts probably would follow the courts of other states in determining what is a matter of legitimate public concern. See the general description for a sense of what others courts have said about this issue.
In Washington, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from government records that are open to public inspection because such information is already exposed to the public eye. One case has refused to impose liability for publishing information contained in a police investigation report. See Moloney v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 613 P.2d 1179 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
No Washington cases address whether consent is a defense to a publication of private facts claim, but the general trend in all states is to recognize such a defense. Washington courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in Washington is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations for a publication of private facts claim in Washington is not settled.
The District of Columbia recognizes a legal claim for publication of private facts. For the most part, the law in D.C. is similar to that described in the general page on publication of private facts. See that page for a full discussion of the elements of and defenses to a private facts claim. This page addresses only those aspects of D.C. law that are different from the general description.
In D.C., the elements of a publications of private facts claim are: (1) publication; (2) of private facts; (3) in which the public has no legitimate concern; and (4) the publication of which would cause suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
D.C. law does not impose liability for publication of facts that are "matters of legitimate public or general interest." Dresbach v. Doubleday & Co., 518 F. Supp. 1285, 1287 (D.D.C. 1981). This "newsworthiness" exception is not limited to dissemination of news about current events or public affairs, but also protects "information concerning interesting phases of human activity and embraces all issues about which information is needed or appropriate so that individuals may cope with the exigencies of their period." Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's,492 A.2d 580, 589 (D.C. 1985).
Individuals retain a zone of privacy relating to their private lives, however, and the defense will not protect the disclosure of facts unless there is a "logical nexus" (i.e., reasonable relationship) between the disclosed facts and the topic of public interest. As a general rule, private facts about public officials and celebrities are more likely of legitimate public interest than private facts about ordinary people who get involuntarily caught up in newsworthy events.
Courts applying D.C. law have found the following things, among others, to be newsworthy (i.e., of legitimate public or general interest):
Courts applying D.C. law have found the following things to be potentially non-newsworthy:
For discussion of additional cases, see the Reporters Committee's Photographers' Guide to Privacy: District of Columbia.
In the District of Columbia, you generally cannot be held liable for publishing truthful information gathered from government records that are open to public inspection. In Wolf v. Regardie, 553 A.2d 1213, 1221 (D.C. 1989), the D.C. Court of Appeals refused to impose liability on a defendant who published financial information gathered from "court files, tax ledgers, and agency records of this City and the federal government." The protection could apply to information obtained from other government records as well, both because of a potential constitutional privilege and because the information is already exposed to the public eye.
The District of Columbia recognizes consent as a defense to a publication of private facts claim. D.C. courts may recognize verbal or implied consent, but it is advisable to get it in writing whenever possible. If getting written consent is not practical, you should record try to record verbal consent using an audio or video recording device. The age of majority in D.C. is eighteen; if you interview or photograph someone under the age of eighteen, you should seek consent from the subject's parent(s) or guardian. See the general description for a more detailed discussion of release forms.
The statute of limitations in D.C. for publication of private facts claims is not entirely clear. A number of federal court decisions applying D.C. law have held that the one-year statute of limitations for defamation actions applies to claims for invasion of privacy, which includes claims for publication of private facts. D.C. Code § 12-301.