EXPLOITATION
From:
Agnes
To: <forum@forces.org>
Subject: Legal Question
Date: Jan. 7, 2004
Hi Norman,
I have an issue that I was hoping you could help me with. Two days ago I was
on a local news station where I live. The news station was doing a story on "smoking in
2004" with an anti-smoking sentiment or bias.
I was filmed without any knowledge in a downtown public place where I
take my lunch break everyday. The news filmed me while I was smoking a cigarette and then aired the story (an extreme close-up image of me taking a
drag) twice in a half-hour segment.
I had family, friends, coworkers and colleagues all watch this portrayal
of me on the news in a negative light. I am a working professional with a good reputation and now I feel like a villain simply because I smoke (which,
last time I checked, is legal).
I feel like my rights have been violated. Do I have any legal recourse,
such as discrimination, slander/defamation of character or invasion of privacy. I understand I was in a public place, but can the news make an
example out of me and profit from me at my expense? If you have any legal advice or simply a lawyer referral I would really appreciate it. Thanks for
your help.
Agnes,
You could call the
news station and ask them for a copy of the release that you signed to use
your image for broadcast (apparently there is not one.) I am not an
attorney, however, you may want to discuss that release issue with a
competent lawyer because there may be distinguishing features of that
broadcast, to your benefit:
1. As a close-up
the image was intended to be explicitly of you, not the general public.
That may take the broadcast footage out of the realm of general public
images that may not require a release and into your personal area. In my
experience as a writer, if a still photographer took a close up of you
like that they would be required to secure a signed release from you to
publish the image.
2. The only reasonable
purpose that can be inferred from such footage is negative (the intention
is to place persons who smoke and the act of smoking in an unfavorable
light.)
3. Therefore you are
confronted with an explicitly clear situation where your personal image
(versus a general public shot) was used in a manner that unfavorably
stereotyped you (to intentionally create a negative image of a lawful
behavior that you were engaging in, to consume a legal
product.)
4. If one can
establish a civil rights or release violation through the above or other
approaches then the question of damages you experienced could arise. What
is your standing in the community and your personal image worth to you?
The above presumes
that you are not a “Public Figure,” as defined for news broadcast
purposes.
By at least inquiring
about a release and getting a written response to that inquiry you are
raising the issue of using your image and a release with the TV station.
By having a competent attorney in Hawaii look at those facts after
you have received a response from the TV station you are taking action
that empowers you to the extent that you have decided others are to be
held responsible for using you
(you therefore would reject implicitly and subconsciously the idea of
victimhood.) Those are, to me, the most important aspects of responding to
this unfortunate situation. In the final analysis we only get the
government and civil society that we deserve by our own inaction. We are
not powerless unless we believe ourselves to be. My congratulations
to you for having the initiative to ask about the issue, as a first step
to reclaiming your personal power!
You may be interested
in going to , Writers, Norman
Kjono, and reading my April 2001 article "Dismissed
With Prejudice" , which reports on the story of a convenience
store clerk who was cited for allegedly
selling cigarettes to minors. It turns out the state dismissed
his case with prejudice rather than confront the clerk’s
written statement that a valid military ID showing a legal age was used in
the sting. If the clerk’s statement was untrue the state could have
readily proven that by merely producing at trial the ID and allegedly
underage person who bought cigarettes. Clearly, if the state had preserved
ID evidence they could have proven the allegation by that clerk and three
other clerks that an ID showing a minor was of legal age was used in the
sting.
The point of that
Hawaii story is twofold: 1) you can get results by standing up for
yourself, and 2) people who report on and support anti-tobacco tend to
be so caught up in self-righteousness or the “goodness” of the cause
that they become sloppy about, and indifferent to, other people’s
genuine and legitimate rights.
So hold them
accountable. Force them to confront use of your image in a crafted
negative way without first securing your permission. Even if you do not
get all the final results you desire, you are taking an extremely
important first step to reclaiming your own power over your life: you are
simply saying “No” to indiscriminate, hurtful, and willfully negative
use of your person by others. That matters.
Best Always,
Norm Kjono
|
Back
to FORCES main page