## Facts

- Wendy Minnifield obtained a tattoo on her upper right breast from Greg Ashcraft, a tattoo artist associated with Skin Worx, Inc.
- After completing the tattoo, Ashcraft asked to photograph the tattoo for his portfolio; Minnifield agreed.
- Ashcraft took at least two photographs: one depicting only the tattoo and another depicting Minnifield’s face and bare upper chest with the tattoo.
- Without further permission, a photograph revealing Minnifield’s face was submitted for publication to a national tattoo magazine along with Skin Worx’s identifying business information.
- People who knew Minnifield recognized her in the publication, including a family member.
- Minnifield alleged the publication embarrassed and demeaned her and caused mental anguish and emotional distress.
- Ashcraft and Skin Worx asserted Minnifield signed a “general release” purportedly releasing them from “any liability.”
- Minnifield sued for invasion of privacy based on unauthorized publication and alleged commercial use of her likeness.
- The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment; Minnifield appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether submitting and publishing an identifiable photograph of Minnifield in a national magazine, tied to the tattoo business, could constitute invasion of privacy by commercial appropriation of likeness without consent.
2. Whether a general release signed in connection with tattoo services unambiguously barred liability for a later, alleged intentional invasion of privacy arising from magazine publication.
3. Whether disputed facts regarding consent, commercial purpose, and the release’s scope made summary judgment improper under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

## Decision

- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the summary judgment for Ashcraft and Skin Worx and remanded.
- The court held that the record presented a genuine issue of material fact on whether defendants used Minnifield’s likeness for commercial benefit without consent.
- The court also held that the release did not clearly and unambiguously cover the alleged intentional invasion-of-privacy conduct and thus did not entitle defendants to judgment as a matter of law.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Minnifield, factual disputes required resolution by the factfinder rather than by summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
- Alabama’s invasion-of-privacy tort includes commercial appropriation: using another’s name or likeness for the defendant’s benefit without consent.
- Commercial-appropriation privacy claims may protect personal and psychological interests, not merely direct monetary interests.
- Releases are strictly construed against the party invoking them; ambiguity generally precludes summary judgment on release-based defenses.
- As a matter of policy, advance releases are disfavored as to intentional torts; if such conduct is to be released, the intent to do so must be stated clearly.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ruled that Minnifield’s invasion-of-privacy claim could proceed because a jury could find her identifiable image was used to benefit the tattoo business without her consent, and because the asserted release was not sufficiently clear to bar an intentional privacy tort claim based on later publication.


Minnifield v. Ashcraft, 903 So. 2d 818 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004)