Source: https://withoutmyconsent.org/50state/state-guides/illinois/statutory-civil-law
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:29:30+00:00

Document:
Right of Publicity Act – 765 ILCS § 1075/1 et seq.
Although the Illinois Constitution recognizes a right to privacy, the right only protects individuals from invasions of privacy by government authorities, aimed primarily at protecting citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. Because there is no constitutional right of privacy between private citizens, a WMC victim would not be able to bring a constitutional right to privacy claim against a private citizen perpetrator.
Procedural Posture: Case removed to federal court by the defendant based on the presence of federal and constitutional claims.
Facts: An employee filed suit after being fired for refusing to submit to a mandatory urinalysis test imposed on employees who handle mercury as part of their job. The test was aimed at monitoring and detecting exposure to mercury. The employee alleged that such requirement constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment under the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 § 6 of the Illinois Constitution.
While not relevant to invasions of privacy committed by individual citizens against other individuals, reference to the constitutionally recognized right of privacy may be helpful in supporting an expectation of privacy to the extent a litigant decides to incorporate public policy arguments into litigation.
The Right of Publicity Act recognizes the right to control and choose how to use one’s own identity for commercial purposes. Thus, a cause of action for violation of a statutory right to publicity is limited to non-consensual use of one’s identity for commercial purposes.
§ 10. Recognition of right of publicity.
The right to control and to choose whether and how to use an individual’s identity for commercial purposes is recognized as each individual’s right of publicity.
§ 15. Transferability, descendability, and divisibility.
The rights under this Act are property rights that are freely transferable in whole or in part to any person either by written transfer, including but not limited to wills and trusts, or by intestate succession only to an individual’s spouse, parents, children, and grandchildren, except that the rights under this Act are not subject to levy or attachment and may not be the subject of a security interest. Nothing in this Section limits the ability of any party to levy, attach, or obtain a security interest in the proceeds of the rights under this Act or the proceeds of the exercise of those rights.
§ 20. Enforcement of rights and remedies.
after the death of an individual who has not transferred the recognized rights by written transfer under this Act, any person or persons who possesses an interest in those rights.
§ 25. Termination of rights of deceased individual.
the individual has no living spouse, parents, children, or grandchildren.
§ 30. Limitations regarding use of an individual’s identity.
§ 40. Violations; monetary relief.
§ 45. Establishment of profits.
the defendant is required to prove properly deductible expenses.
Upon a showing of cause as required by Article XI of the Code of Civil Procedure for the issuance of injunctive relief, the court may issue such temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions as may be appropriate under this Act.
§ 55. Attorney’s fees; costs.
The court may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses relating to an action under this Act.
§ 60. Rights and remedies.
The rights and remedies provided for in this Act are meant to supplant those available under the common law as of the effective date of this Act, but do not affect an individual’s common law rights as they existed before the effective date of this Act. Except for the common law right of publicity, the rights and remedies provided under this Act are supplemental to any other rights and remedies provided by law including, but not limited to, the common law right of privacy.
Procedural Posture: Defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss.
Facts: Late singer James Brown and 2 others filed suit against Corbis, a company that licenses copyrights of stock photographs and images, alleging infringement on Brown’s right of publicity through Corbis’ unauthorized commercial use of the singer’s image on its website. Brown’s images are displayed in the “professional use” section of Corbis’ website, which contains a catalog of “rights managed” images—namely, images that require additional releases and permissions.
Procedural Posture: The plaintiff appeals an order of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.
Facts: A former employee of a casino restaurant filed suit against his former employer for the ongoing use of his image for promotional purposes after the employee resigned. The plaintiff had been compensated for his participation in the photo shoot and had consented to the use of his image for promotional purposes. The image was used in various media, including brochures, menus, billboards, calendars and postcards in the casino gift shop, and on the company’s website beginning in mid–1995 and continuing up until the plaintiff filed suit in September 2004. Plaintiff voluntarily left his employment in 1999.
Special Notes: In this case a single image was used for the same purpose across multiple media. Had the casino used different images from the same photo shoot, each image would accrue according to the date it was first published. The court also noted that plaintiffs’ consent may have been revoked after he left (either overtly or by operation of law), but declined to analyze the issue because suit would still have been untimely.
No person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel or slander or invasion of privacy or any other tort founded upon any single publication or exhibition or utterance, such as any one edition of a newspaper or book or magazine or any one presentation to an audience or any one broadcast over radio or television or any one exhibition of a motion picture. Recovery in any action shall include all damages for any such tort suffered by the plaintiff in all jurisdictions.
A judgment in any jurisdiction for or against the plaintiff upon the substantive merits of any action for damages founded upon a single publication or exhibition or utterance as described in Section 1 shall bar any other action for damages by the same plaintiff against the same defendant founded upon the same publication or exhibition or utterance.
This Act may be cited as the Uniform Single Publication Act.
This Act shall not be retroactive as to causes of action existing on its effective date.
Procedural Posture: In a defamation action, plaintiff appeals an order vacating a previous order allowing plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff had filed the first-amended complaint three years after filing the original complaint, and after the statute of limitations for libel had run.
Facts: Plaintiff filed an original complaint for defamation alleging publication of a libelous letter to certain public authorities. Three years later, Plaintiff filed a first-amended complaint alleging distribution of the same libelous letter to various newspapers. The court ruled that the publication to the public authorities listed in the original complaint was privileged. The primary issue is whether the first–amended complaint, which was filed after the statute of limitations had run, “related–back” to the date of filing of the original complaint.
Special Notes: Although the statute’s purpose is to prohibit multiple causes of action for the same means of publication, the plaintiff relied on the statute’s language to argue that the publication to the newspapers was the same cause of action as the publication to the authorities.
Altered images or republication of the same images to legally distinct audiences likely qualify as distinct causes of action.
Although WMC victims frequently know their harasser, many victims are subjected to harassment by multiple individuals, some of whom may participate in the conduct anonymously. Rule 224 is a discovery rule allowing plaintiffs, with leave of the court, to compel the discovery of the identity of anonymous parties against whom the plaintiff may have a claim. Through Rule 224, victims may be permitted to compel the internet service provider or social media host to disclose the identity of the anonymous harasser so that the victim may bring suit against the perpetrator.
A person or entity who wishes to engage in discovery for the sole purpose of ascertaining the identity of one who may be responsible in damages may file an independent action for such discovery.
The action for discovery shall be initiated by the filing of a verified petition in the circuit court of the county in which the action or proceeding might be brought or in which one or more of the persons or entities from whom discovery is sought resides. The petition shall be brought in the name of the petitioner and shall name as respondents the persons or entities from whom discovery is sought and shall set forth: (A) the reason the proposed discovery is necessary and (B) the nature of the discovery sought and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to obtain such discovery. The order allowing the petition will limit discovery to the identification of responsible persons and entities and where a deposition is sought will specify the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, or, if unknown, information sufficient to identify each person and the time and place of the deposition.
Procedural Posture: Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s denial of their petition to compel disclosure of the identity of online posters of allegedly defamatory comments on the defendant’s website.
Facts: Multiple anonymous internet posters made allegedly defamatory statements regarding the plaintiffs, owners of a Bed & Breakfast, following an article concerning a proposed ordinance to allow B&Bs to operate in residential areas.
In defamation cases, the plaintiff must also plead facts to establish that the allegedly defamatory statements are not constitutionally protected before a court will grant discovery under Rule 224. An example of constitutionally protected speech that is relevant to WMC victims is speech that conveys a mere opinion, and could not be construed as factual.

References: § 1075
 § 6

§ 10

§ 15

§ 20

§ 25

§ 30

§ 40

§ 45

§ 55

§ 60