Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Gerard Magliocca on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Mike on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Ben on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Samir Chopra on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Chris Berry on Who Gets to Keep Trover?

    • Prof. W. Matias on Introducing Guest Blogger andré douglas pond cummings

    • Andrew on Public Finance and National Security

    • Joe on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Timothy Zick on Free Speech Architecture - Responses

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on On the Servicing Settlement

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on On the Servicing Settlement
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Defamation by PhotoShop?

posted by Frank Pasquale

At 25, you have the face heredity gave you; at 50, you have the face you deserve; and at Fox News, your features depend on whether you’re a friend or enemy of the network. Or at least that’s how Jacques Steinberg and Edward Reddicliffe must feel after Fox aired doctored photos of them on its news show.

steinberg.jpg

Note that the normal photo was not shown on Fox News; the distorted image was presented as the face of Steinberg. (I’ve embedded the full clip below the fold.)

Can such a distorted depiction give rise to a defamation action? Obviously if the picture were a cartoon, and/or the program a satire or non-news program, creative license lets just about anything go (though some particularly egregious images have sparked resistance). But does a news program have a special obligation to “objectively” present images? And, returning to defamation, is it possible to argue a) that the distorted image is a “lie” about the person it depicts and b) that ugliness (that which distortion seeks to convey) is actionable as something damaging to the person whose image is distorted?


a) As for the idea of “lie” here, consider these arguments about the infamous “darkened OJ Simpson” image on the cover of Time Magazine:

The image on Time was digitally manipulated, making OJ darker and heavily shadowed (in juxtaposition to Newsweek['s image]). . . . Although Time claimed it was a “photo illustration” that served to “show the tragic downfall of an American football hero,” other folks disagreed. Time was charged with: (1) perpetuating the stereotype of “violent” black men; (2) suggesting OJ was guilty; (3) applying digital manipulations to a “news” photo–apparently a real no-no in journalism . . . [But Cara A.] Finnegan . . . challenges those who think the image serves as a “visual argument,” which she defines as a “set of premises, identifiable in the image, leading to a conclusion which is itself present in the image” (236).

Compare the idea that “OJ is guilty” to “Steinberg is ugly.” What does the puff-chinned, big-eared, grotesque-nosed Steinberg image “argue” here? Glenn Greenwald might assimilate it to what he calls “the dominant media theme for the last two decades in our political discourse:”

What matters is that Democrats and liberals are weak, effete, elitist, nerdy, military-hating, gender-confused losers . . .and who merit sneering mockery and derision. Republican right-wing male leaders are salt-of-the-earth, wholesome, likable tough guys — courageous warriors and normal family men who merit personal admiration and affection. . . . [In our] press corps, fantasy easily trumps reality. And our media stars thus . . . cackle in derision at the Democratic weaklings and losers.

Greenwald’s analysis, backed up at length in his latest book, articulates a possible “message” in the Fox News photoshopping. But is it really communication, or manipulation? And if the latter, does it not fit more under the rubric of “subliminal advertising” than defamation?

b) Another challenge to a defamation suit might be whether the image is genuinely harmful to the person’s reputation. The closer one looks at it, the more obvious it becomes that the proportions of the face are impossible. But note that the clip was shown very briefly in its original context, leaving no time to scrutinize it.

What about “ugliness” is “damaging”? Enlightened individuals judge others on the basis of the content of their character, not their looks; but in this respect America may be becoming less enlightened every day. Here some perplexities raised in recent cases about allegations of homosexuality may be relevant. The question is whether, in an increasingly tolerant society, being alleged to be homosexual is still libelous. Two recent cases come out in diametric opposition:

Klepetko v. Reisman, 41 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) (“The false imputation of homosexuality is “reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation” )

Greenly v. Sara Lee Corp., 2008 WL 1925230 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“[c]ontinuing to characterize the identification of someone as a homosexual [to be] defamation per se [demeans the lives of homosexual persons]“.)

To continue the analogy: just as sodomy laws were only repealed gradually, only in the early 1970s were certain “ugly laws” repealed. One such law ordered that “‘No person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated or in any way deformed so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object or improper person [is] to be allowed in or on the public ways or other public places in this city . . . under a penalty of not less than one dollar nor more than fifty dollars for each offense.”

In conclusion; I imagine that a defamation case would be a tough one for either Reddicliffe or Steinberg, but admittedly I have not researched “defamation by distorted image.” Edward Tufte has documented the damage that “fudged photos” can do to science, but it’s not clear that much can be done about them in the political public sphere.

So what’s to stop the unflattering depiction, already a mainstay of negative political ads, to gradually morph into the photoshopped truthiness Fox has pioneered? Perhaps the only answer is to fight fire with fire; Olbermann might air the work, say, of Kenneth Tin-Kin Hung . . . :

meccadonalds.jpg

(Hung, still from Because Washington is Hollywood for Ugly People)

One thing is clear: if one side in politics adopts the tactic with impunity, the other side has clearly not read its Schmitt and Niebuhr if it decides merely to “turn the other cheek.”

PS: Here is the clip in context:

And here is Reddicliffe’s transmogrification:

reddicliffe.jpg


 July 5, 2008 at 10:50 am   Posted in: Media Law, Movies & Television, Privacy, Race   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (4)

  1. Joe Miller - July 5, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Frank,

    Let’s not forget copyright …

    I imagine the person who owns the copyright in the photos has a cause of action for the unauthorized preparation of a derivative work. Not much of a fair use argument, given the same facts you highlight (purporting to be a routine headshot, not a spoof, etc.), is there?

    Best,

    Joe

  2. Rhonda R Shearer - July 6, 2008 at 8:27 am

    I enjoyed this posting. Thank you.

    Since NY Times reporters are public figures the bar is much higher for defamation claims than for regular citizens. However, public figures still control the commercial exploitation rights for their “image and likeness.”

    The intentional negative degrading of their likeness (likeness, in this case, is an asset and has value for a public figure) may be actionable for the reporters and their bosses as “tortious interference” defined as “The causing of harm by disrupting something that belongs to someone else.”

    Also, Fox also obviously knew before publication that they were degrading these reporters image and likeness before publication–which could conceivably be considered malice (under the Sullivan vs NY Times definition.)

    In addition, a “false light” defamation claim could be made where the bar is lower and the reporters can claim subjective damages (they feel injured) in addition to the more objective defamation claims of monetary damages from “tortious interference” and the harm to their image and likeness.

    Full disclosure. I am not a lawyer but have worked with investigating media misconduct for the past 5 years. Much of this includes looking at the harm done to MsM victims and what legal recourses they have. In my defense of daring to speak on legal matters: one of my reports is cited by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)as key to their legal case and enforcement — for them as well as numerous State Attorney Generals.

    See some of our cases at http://www.stinkyjournalism.org

    which is part of our not-for-profit Art Science Research Laboratory co-founded by me and my late husband Stephen Jay Gold. Go to http://www.asrlab.org

  3. Jon Garfunkel - July 7, 2008 at 12:08 am

    I’d just demur from Rhonda above. The “public figure” test from Gertz v. Welch comprises (a) ability to rebut, and (b) voluntary exposes oneself to scrutiny. Putting aside (a), Steinberg and Reddicliffe, as print reporters, do not expose their images to the public. But then, what about reporters who are regular TV guests?

    I’d suggest a different standard which I could not find while skimming through the relevant pages in Solove and Friedman. There’s the problem of “damaging first impression.” The D.F.I. the heart of the reason for victims of defamation to collect. A public figure has already made a “first impression” on the news-watching public, and then should be relatively unharmed by a photo-caricature.

    I’m not a lawyer either, so I suspect that the most artful response would come from Keith Olbermann on Countdown.

  4. Rhonda R Shearer - July 7, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Hi Jon,

    The problem was there was no disclosure that these images were photo cartoons. They were passed off as portrait

    photos of the two reporters.

    Nowadays with all the cross media platforms, the NY Times reporters names, likenesses and “intellectual production” are all fused and are clearly assets of value. Look at the correlation between best sellers and NY Times reporters–it’s impressive. They are hawking their wares even in the middle of network news programs in disguise as “news.” (Much to my dismay, of course).

    If image and likeness is an asset, then “first impression” does not seem relevant

    in the approach I suggested. Any lawyers have opinions on this?

    A lawsuit against FOX would be great fun in the sense that discovery would likely reveal what the heck happened at FOX (FOX has clammed shut–no response so far). Was it a couple of FOX summer interns who did the photo shop.. and graphics just took the faces from the watch dog cartoon as separate images without thinking? I suspect something like this scenario happened?

    I have been threatened with lawsuits a couple of time–like from the corporate giant CIT. I always

    say “please do sue me [for libel]; I can’t wait to go to discovery.” In CIT’s case, I would have loved to have gotten their auditor’s records. In defending against a libel action, it is said that the widest leeway is given defendants by judges for their discovery requests since the only defense of libel is truth.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress