Neff v. Time, Inc.
406 F.Supp. 858, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16989 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The publication of a person's photograph, taken in a public place with implied consent and used to illustrate a newsworthy article, does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy, even if the photograph is embarrassing. Such publications are protected by the First Amendment as matters of legitimate public interest.
Facts:
- On November 25, 1973, John W. Neff attended a professional football game in Cleveland.
- Before the game, Neff and a group of other fans were on a dugout, waving banners, drinking beer, and acting enthusiastically.
- A photographer for Sports Illustrated began taking pictures of the group.
- After learning the photographer was from Sports Illustrated, Neff and the others encouraged him to take more pictures, posing and 'hamming it up' for the camera.
- In one of the photographs taken, the front zipper of Neff's trousers was completely open.
- On August 5, 1974, Sports Illustrated, owned by Time, Inc., published an article titled 'A Strange Kind of Love' about football fans.
- The magazine deliberately selected and published the photograph of Neff with his fly open to illustrate the article, without his express consent or knowledge beforehand.
Procedural Posture:
- John W. Neff sued Time, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, a state trial court.
- Time, Inc. removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, a federal trial court.
- Time, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in its favor without a full trial.
- Neff did not file any affidavits to counter the facts presented by Time, Inc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the publication of an embarrassing photograph of an individual, taken with his implied consent in a public place and used to illustrate a newsworthy article, constitute an actionable invasion of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Marsh, District Judge
No. The publication of the photograph does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy. The court reasoned that Neff's claim failed under both the 'appropriation of likeness' and 'public disclosure of private facts' theories of invasion of privacy. The appropriation tort is inapplicable because the photograph was used for a newsworthy article, not for a commercial purpose like advertising; the fact that the magazine is sold for profit does not change this. The public disclosure tort is inapplicable because the photograph was taken in a public place where Neff had no expectation of privacy, depicting an event that anyone present could have witnessed. The subject of football fans is a matter of legitimate public interest, and the First Amendment protects truthful publications related to such newsworthy events, even if the content is offensive or embarrassing to the subject.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for invasion of privacy claims against the press, particularly when the underlying events occur in a public setting. It solidifies the principle that newsworthiness is a broad concept that includes not just hard news but also stories about public events and cultural phenomena like sports fandom. The ruling clarifies that an individual's actions in a public place, especially when they voluntarily engage with the media, can waive their right to privacy concerning those actions. This case serves as a strong precedent favoring First Amendment protections for publishers over an individual's right to be free from embarrassing, but truthful, publicity.
