People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini Ltd.

recognizing that to sustain an invasion of privacy, claim a plaintiff must actually expect solitude or seclusion, and that expectation must be objectively reasonable | recognizing that the plaintiff must actually expect solitude or seclusion, and the plaintiffs expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable | recognizing that to sustain an invasion of privacy, claim a plaintiff must actually expect solitude or seclusion, and that expectation must be objectively reasonable | recognizing that to sustain an invasion of privacy, claim a plaintiff must actually expect solitude or seclusion, and that expectation must be objectively reasonable | recognizing that the plaintiff must actually expect solitude or seclusion, and the plaintiffs expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable | recognizing that the plaintiff must actually expect solitude or seclusion, and the plaintiffs expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable | recognizing that the plaintiff must actually expect solitude or seclusion, and the plaintiffs expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable | recognizing that the plaintiff must actually expect solitude or seclusion, and the plaintiffs expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable | noting that a videotape at issue was not "false" because it was an accurate portrayal of what had happened | noting that a videotape at issue was not "false" because it was an accurate portrayal of what had happened | finding no reasonable expectation of privacy where “Gesmundo filmed activities taking place backstage at the Stardust Hotel, an area where Gesmundo had every right to be, and the filming was of a subject that could be seen and heard by any number of persons” | an animal trainer had no subjective expectation of privacy in a hotel's backstage area where "[h]e had nothing to hide — nothing to be private about" | “[A] plaintiff must show that he or she had an actual expectation of seclusion or solitude and that expectation was objectively reasonable.” | an animal trainer had no subjective expectation of privacy in a hotel’s backstage area where “[h]e had nothing to hide — nothing to be private about” | “there is, generally speaking, a reduced objective expectation of privacy in the workplace.” | “the right of publicity refers to a 6 property right in a person’s identity. This property right is infringed by the unpermitted use of a 7 person’s identity for money-making purposes.” | "[W]hile a false light claim may be defamatory, it need not be." | video of animal trainer beating animals | overruled in part on other grounds | overruled in part on other grounds | ele-merits of invasion of privacy claim