## Facts

- A television station cameraman filmed an automobile accident scene in which Richard Anderson was recognizable, bleeding, and receiving emergency medical treatment.
- The station did not air the footage in its regular news programming at the time of the accident.
- The station later used a brief excerpt of the footage in promotional spots advertising an upcoming special news report about a new emergency medical dispatch system.
- The promotional spots did not identify Anderson by name, and the special report did not discuss Anderson’s accident.
- Anderson alleged mental anguish from seeing the promotional use of his injured image and from others potentially recognizing him.
- Anderson sought general damages for emotional distress only.

## Issues

1. Whether Oregon common law permits damages for emotional distress based solely on the truthful publication of a recognizable image depicting a person in an offensive or embarrassing condition, absent independently wrongful conduct.
2. Whether using a person’s image in a promotional spot for a news program, without consent, constitutes tortious appropriation of likeness for commercial advantage.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the broadcaster.
- Truthful publication of facts about a person, even if a reasonable person would prefer privacy and even if arguably not “newsworthy,” is not actionable for emotional distress unless the defendant’s conduct is independently wrongful apart from causing hurt feelings.
- On the undisputed record, the station’s filming and promotional use involved no breach of a special duty, deception, trespass, coercion, or other independent wrong.
- The station’s use of the excerpt to promote a news report about emergency medical services did not constitute actionable commercial appropriation of Anderson’s likeness.
- Because the claims failed under state tort law, the court did not rely on the broadcaster’s First Amendment arguments as an independent ground for decision.

## Legal Principles

- Oregon does not impose tort damages for the truthful publication of facts about a person, even if personally embarrassing or arguably not of legitimate public concern, absent additional wrongful conduct independent of the emotional harm.
- “Newsworthiness” is not a standalone source of liability in Oregon for truthful publication; the controlling question is whether the defendant employed wrongful means or violated a distinct legal duty.
- Appropriation of likeness requires more than incidental use of an image to publicize or promote news or public-affairs programming; such promotional use may remain within the broadcaster’s journalistic function rather than commercial exploitation.

## Conclusion

The court held that Anderson could not recover for emotional distress because the broadcaster truthfully used lawfully obtained accident footage without any independent wrongful conduct, and the brief promotional use to advertise a related news report did not amount to tortious appropriation of likeness.


Anderson v. Fisher Broad. Cos., 300 Or. 452, 712 P.2d 803 (Or. 1986)