Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In France, personality rights are protected under article 9 of the French civil code. While publicly known facts and images of public figures are not generally protected, use of someone's image or personal history has been held actionable under French law.
Celebrity privacy refers to the right of celebrities and public figures, largely entertainers, athletes or politicians, to withhold the information they are unwilling to disclose. This term often pertains explicitly to personal information , which includes addresses and family members, among other data for personal identification.
a public figure, a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure , according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , is a person who has "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.", or engaged in ...
Objective expectation of privacy: legitimate and generally recognized by society and perhaps protected by law. Places where individuals expect privacy include residences, hotel rooms, [ 1 ] or public places that have been provided by businesses or the public sector to ensure privacy, including public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses ...
It is often claimed, particularly by those in the eye of the media, that their right to privacy is violated when information about their private lives is reported in the press. The point of view of the press, however, is that the general public has a right to know personal information about those with status as a public figure.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that when a publication involves a public figure, to support a suit for libel the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the publisher acted with actual malice: knew of the inaccuracy of the statement or acted with reckless disregard of its truth.
The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless ...