Opinion ID: 1831361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was there an invasion of right of privacy?

Text: Plaintiff's claimed right of privacy poses the most difficult question but, once again, it is a question of fact for determination by a jury. The right of privacy does exist in Michigan. Pallas v. Crowley, Milner & Company (1948), 322 Mich 411. It was examined by the Michigan Supreme Court in Atkinson v. John E. Doherty & Co. (1899), 121 Mich 372 (46 LRA 219, 80 Am St Rep 507). In that case it was held that a widow could not assert a suit for an injunction to prevent the use of the name of her deceased husband and a purported picture of him for a cigar and cigar label. It was concluded that the right, if it did exist, did not survive to the widow. The right can be inferred in the early Michigan case of Demay v. Roberts (1881), 46 Mich 160 (41 Am Rep 154). In Pallas, this Court refused to follow the reservations as to the right expressed in Atkinson. Pallas involved a claimed unauthorized use by defendant of plaintiff's photograph. The Court said (pp 416, 417): The general rule (to which, of course, there are exceptions) is stated thus in the American Law Institute's 4 Restatement, Torts, § 867, p 398: `A person who unreasonably and seriously interferes with another's interest in not having his affairs known to others or his likeness exhibited to the public is liable to the other.' Doubtless the question whether the unauthorized publication of a person's photographic likeness `unreasonably and seriously' interferes with such person's right of privacy involves an issue of fact which cannot be determined on hearing a motion to dismiss, as was done in the case at bar. We conclude that there are circumstances under which one may have a right of privacy in a photographic likeness, which may give rise to an action for damages for the unauthorized publication thereof. In so holding, we do not overlook Atkinson v. John E. Doherty & Co., 121 Mich 372 (46 LRA 219, 80 Am St Rep 507), but decline to follow the same to the extent that it is inconsistent with the conclusion reached herein. Prosser, Interstate Publication, 51 Mich L Rev 959, 990, describes the right of privacy as follows: Notwithstanding all this, the boundaries of the tort are still anything but well defined. It appears in reality to be a complex of four more or less related wrongs. One, which has the clearest recognition, is the appropriation of the values of a name, picture or personality. A second consists of intrusion upon the plaintiff's solitude or seclusion, as by invading his room, or tapping his telephone wires. The third consists of giving unjustifiable and embarrassing publicity to present or past facts out of the plaintiff's life, and is apparently closely related to the intentional infliction of mental suffering. The fourth, which has made a rather amorphous appearance in half a dozen cases, involves putting the plaintiff in a false but not necessarily defamatory position in the public eye, as by attributing to him views that he does not hold, or conduct with which he cannot fairly be charged. Here the claimed invasions of privacy consist of the appropriation    of a name, picture or personality    giving unjustifiable and embarrassing publicity to    past facts out of the plaintiff's life, and    attributing to him    conduct with which he cannot fairly be charged. Prosser, supra. These are questions for a jury to determine. The proofs upon trial will of necessity include a viewing of the telecast. The language of an actor, it should be noted, is much more than words. See Gadde v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., 377 Mich 117, 127, text and footnote 4 re nonverbal communication. It is the way in which he speaks, the way in which he moves about, the manner in which he smiles or frowns, that tells the story. If plaintiff has been portrayed as a villain, or whatever the portrayal, a jury is the proper fact-finder to consider and assess that portrayal in its entirety.