Introduction
Privacy is an especially equivocal idea, in particularly because invasion of privacy is a concept that is arguably questionable. Privacy has been defined as the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by government, media, or other institutions or individuals. While this definition serves as a quick start to the right of privacy, there are still several interpretations as to what may or may not constitute as an invasion of privacy. What one person may believe to be an innocent curiosity, another may feel as though it is a deliberate invasion of privacy. Often these disputes make their way into courtrooms and are subjected to controversy and evaluation. This essay will focus on appropriation of name or likeness for commercial purposes. First, it will define the right of privacy, and right of publicity. Next, the evaluation and discussion of four cases in which appropriation of name or likeness for commercial gain was assessed in courtrooms. Then after, thoughts on current developments in this area of law will be discussed, as well as suggestions for current working journalists. Finally, closing and concluding statements will be addressed.
Background
In the mid twentieth century, the tort of appropriation experienced a shift. Courts reoriented the tort so that it no longer exclusively protected a person’s interest in dignity or “privacy,” but rather the pecuniary interest in the commercial exploitation of one’s identity, or one’s
As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into
In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the
Whether it is calling someone on your phone or online shopping on the computer, people are more connected than ever to the internet. However, a person might be oblivious to the fact that they are being watched using these technologies. The NSA (National Security Agency) is an intelligence organization for the U.S. to protect information systems and foreign intelligence information. Recently the NSA has been accused of invading personal privacy through web encryption, tracking, and using personal information for their own uses and without permission. The surveillance of the NSA produces unlawful invasion of privacy causing an unsecure nation.
When the first 10 amendments of the constitution were written, one of the main concerns was government intrusion. In the 1800s, citizens were concern about the confidentiality of their correspondence. Likewise in 1890, the concern was photography and yellow journalism. With lack of privacy laws, citizens brought several cases to the U.S courts because they felt there were violations of privacy. As a consequent, several torts were written and recognize by most states. This torts included the intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light or publicity, and appropriation. Though, historical events have help to expand the definition of privacy, there has not been a critical event that forced America to have a comprehensive federal policy about protecting the right to privacy. Nevertheless, every time that there is a major concern that threatens the right to privacy, the government and the states have passed laws to eliminate those
While I trust the government and support their policies, you, the federal government, have failed us Americans. When attempting to gain information for an investigation, nearly 22.1 million innocent Americans have been exposed to the public with their personal information hanging by a thread, according to the Washington Post. You politicians may assume that justice is served by providing victims with incentives of extra security technology, but the federal government should not be allowed to gain information from personal devices for their investigation. Furthermore, the use of malware to hack these innocent Americans is an invasion of privacy, ruins devices and their data, ensues lawsuits and their costs with unnecessary breaches, and may even put people’s lives at risk.
In 1787, the constitution was born. The constitution has been America’s guideline to the American way of life. Our US constitution has many points in it to protect America and it’s people from an overpowered government, our economy, and ourselves. The only thing the constitution doesn’t directly give us, is our right to privacy, and our right to privacy has been a big concern lately courtesy of the National Security Agency (NSA).(#7) Although our constitution doesn’t necessarily cover the privacy topic, it does suggest that privacy is a given right. Some people say that the right to privacy was so obvious, that our founding fathers didn’t even feel the need to make a point about it.(#9) It also didn’t help
Surveillance cameras are needed for public places in order to ensure safety of all individuals. The government, for the most part, is on Americans side and wants to ensure Americans protection. Safety in shopping centers, in traffic, and on the streets is a huge issue in America today. Despite what the majority of Americans believe, officers do care about the people in the cars and want to ensure their safety at all times. Privacy is not dead in America, people have violated the trust of others and as a result have lost complete privacy.
The privacy of American citizens has been long debated ever since the N.S.A. was revealed to the public on what it was doing. Since then, American citizens have been arguing over what the N.S.A. should and shouldn 't be doing. This has lead to the government changing some things, but not everything and causing the American citizens to get upset and wonder what is and isn 't being watched. We go through on a daily basis wondering if our next phone call, that next email, our websites we browse and even our next text message is being monitored by the government and if it is will it get flagged as something they deem worthy of investigating into. This constant fear has us wondering what we should and shouldn 't be posting on various social media sites, taking pictures of or even talking about. By questioning what the N.S.A. is doing, we leave ourselves pondering what the government should do to adjust what control the N.S.A. should have, the activities it should be conducting, who they should be monitoring and what gets flagged as warranting further investigation. Many people believe that the N.S.A. should have restrictions placed on it that prevent it from having complete access to everything, in which if they are going to be able to access anything they want to they need to inform the public on what information they are going to get and how they use it as without this information being
The government's involvement in the daily lives of Americans is a high contested issue--where do our rights end and invasions of our privacy begin? Though it may be true that the government should not control deeply personal decisions, such as the decision to marry or the freedom of a woman to control what is done to her body, there are times when decisive executive choices must be made without leaving the responsibility to the common people. This fact does not work against America’s goals of democracy and self-sufficiency, but rather proves that our government can support these goals by taking action to solve serious nationwide problems.
Technology has easily become one of the worlds most used and popular inventions. Especially in this time and for the young adults of today’s world. We use it in basically every aspect of our lives. At work, at home, at school, and probably most of all in our social lives technology is always around. There are websites for everything, cell phones that can DO anything, and other pieces of technology that aid us through our lives. Everywhere we turn there is technology. It’s hard to escape it. Items such as television 's, computers, cell phones, even the microwave and that electric tooth brush you use is technology. Even though technology has its many positive influences in everyday life, it also has its bad influences. One of the most controversial topics when it comes to the topic of technology is the invasion of our privacy. How can something that is supposed to make our lives so much easier, actually make it so much harder? With the levels of technology, we have today, along with the internet and all of which the internet consumes, our privacy is basically non-existent. In the novel, The Circle, written by Dave Eggers, it is evident that with the uprising of technology, it is nearly impossible to have privacy and it affects our daily lives. It is not often that you come across someone who doesn’t have a cell phone of computer and it apart of some type of social media program where they interact with people. While social media is not the only aspect of technology that
A government like that portrayed in 1984 does not gain that amount of power overnight. It is gained in small steps over a long period of time. The people underneath a government who are doing this just think, “Oh, the laws are not that bad,” or “It is for our own good.” With enough time, the laws become to control people instead of to protect them. In the United States, there is a constant battle between government power and the freedom of the citizens. In the past decade, the amount of people who regularly use the Internet has skyrocketed because of the services that are provided, such as social networking, email, banking, and the ability to pay bills online. To effectively use these services requires personal information to be entered. Much
Recently police have been searching many people’s private information, which is an invasion of privacy. Will this cause an even bigger riot between the people and police? Some believe these actions are appropriate, and necessary to help maintain safe communities. Officials should not be allowed to use information obtained from private devices or social networking sites.
Government surveillance has not contributed to a decrease of percentage in crimes, but has created a controversial topic instead. Online surveillance has been an invasion of privacy, because everything the users access is seen without their consent. Due to the fact the stored data is not used, government surveillance in the united states has not been very impactful. Crimes and terrorist attacks were not stopped, and the mass storage of personal data within the last year has violated privacy laws 2,776 times (Government Surveillance 722). Surveillance online is not only unsuccessful in America, but in UK, and Canada as well. Out of every 1000 security cameras, only one camera is actually used to catch a criminal (Government Surveillance 722). However, there are several solutions that can be made to allow the usage of government surveillance without the violating the rights of Americans. Some of the solutions have already taken action, and will give users more freedom online.
It's easy to see and understand the ideas of intrusion and appropriation. In fact many media slightly encourage their reporter to dig up dirt by either trespassing or sneaking around to get information, and as well to use a person's picture with out consent. However the two more serious of the privacy laws are very much like that of libel.
Q.1. We use many free Internet services (browsers, emails, search engines, news, blogs, etc.) that are supported by commercial advertisements. The users were exposed to more and more "targeted" ads recently. By "targeted" ads, we mean the ads are geared toward your personal Internet habits such as your location, your search topics, your browsing habits and interests, etc. Do you welcome targeted ads that might just what you needed? What are your views or concerns? What would you suggest to solve the issues of privacy invasion? Post your answer also on the "Discussions" board. Ref: To block ads from YouTube, Facebook, etc., you could use browser extensions as described in this article: 10 Ad Blocking Extensions Tested for Best Performance https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-ad-blocking-extensions-tested-for-best-performance/