No, the couple cannot win their lawsuit. The judge decided the ad was political speech about important public issues (gay marriage and the military), which is strongly protected by the First Amendment. The ad wasn't selling a product, so it wasn't a commercial. The judge also said that no reasonable person would think the ad was calling the couple themselves unpatriotic; it was clearly criticizing the AARP. Because the ad wasn't truly about the couple and was protected political speech, the group didn't break the law.

No, the ad doesn't break the law or unfairly harm the men. I decided this because the ad was really about AARP's ideas, not about Steve and Richard. Just because their picture was used doesn't mean the ad was saying anything bad about them personally. The ad was talking about important public issues, which the law protects. It didn't try to sell anything or make money directly. Even though using their picture without asking might not be very nice, it's not against the law in this case. The ad didn't say anything untrue about the men or show them in a really bad way that would seriously upset most people. So, even though the men are upset, they can't win their case in court.

No, the use of the photograph in this context does not constitute an actionable claim because the advertisement is noncommercial speech addressing matters of public concern and is therefore protected by the First Amendment. The court dismissed all four of the plaintiffs' claims. The appropriation of likeness claim fails because the advertisement is not commercial; it addresses newsworthy issues of public concern (same-sex marriage and military support), and the fact that a viewer could click through to a page soliciting donations does not transform the political ad itself into commercial speech. The libel and false light claims fail because the advertisement is not capable of a defamatory meaning; a reasonable person would not infer that the plaintiffs themselves are unpatriotic, but rather that the ad is making a point about the AARP's alleged policy positions. The link between the plaintiffs' image and the anti-military message is 'too tenuous.' Finally, the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails because the defendants' conduct—using a publicly available photograph in a political advertisement—does not constitute an 'extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.'

No. The advertisement is not capable of a defamatory meaning and is protected by the First Amendment. I conclude that the advertisement does not directly or by reasonable implication suggest that the plaintiffs are unpatriotic or do not support the military. The advertisement's primary message is about AARP's alleged stance on certain policy issues, not a statement about the plaintiffs. The use of the plaintiffs' image does not convey any defamatory meaning and is true in representing them as a gay couple, which is not disputable and thus not defamatory. The advertisement addresses issues of public concern and is not commercial in nature, as it does not directly solicit donations or promote services. While the unauthorized use of the plaintiffs' photograph may not be in good taste, it does not violate Oregon civil law. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims fail to meet the legal standards for libel, invasion of privacy, or emotional distress. The First Amendment precludes the plaintiffs from maintaining their appropriation of likeness claim. The false light claim is deficient for the same reasons as the libel claim. The conduct alleged does not rise to the level of outrageousness required for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Oregon law.

Raymen v. UNITED SENIOR ASS'N, INC.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot