## Facts

- The Maine Times (defendant), a newspaper circulated in Maine, published a photograph of an infant boy (plaintiff).
- The infant and his mother, Lorraine Nelson (plaintiff), were members of the Penobscot Tribe and lived on the Penobscot Indian Reservation in Old Town, Maine.
- The photograph depicted the infant in an apparently happy condition in a pastoral setting.
- The complaint alleged the photograph was published without the infant’s consent and without his mother’s consent.
- On the infant’s behalf, the complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages for invasion of privacy, alleging the publication invaded the seclusion of his private life and exploited his likeness and his heritage as a member of the Penobscot Nation or Tribe.
- The mother separately sought compensatory damages for mental suffering and humiliation, alleging the unauthorized publication outraged and shocked her as a person of ordinary sensibilities.
- The Superior Court granted the newspaper’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The mother and infant appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reviewed the dismissal, with counsel indicating the complaint could not be materially amended to add different facts.

## Issues

1. Whether publishing a non-defamatory, non-misleading photograph of an infant in a newspaper, without consent, states a claim for invasion of privacy under Maine law (including intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, publicity given to private life, or false light).
2. Whether the infant’s mother can recover for mental suffering and humiliation based solely on her reaction to the publication of her son’s photograph, absent an actionable invasion of a legally protected interest.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the dismissal and denied the appeals.
- The complaint did not plead facts supporting intrusion upon seclusion because it challenged publication of the photo, not offensive prying into private affairs or a private place.
- The complaint did not plead facts supporting appropriation of name or likeness because it did not allege use of the child’s identity for trade, advertising, or a similar commercial advantage; publication in a newspaper article, without more, was not enough.
- The complaint did not plead facts supporting publicity given to private life because it did not allege disclosure of private facts; the image was innocuous and not alleged to reveal intimate details.
- The complaint did not plead false light because it did not allege the photo or accompanying context conveyed a materially misleading impression about the child.
- The mother’s emotional-harm claim failed because the conduct alleged did not amount to a recognized tort against her, and Maine law did not permit recovery based only on emotional reaction to a non-tortious publication.

## Legal Principles

- Maine recognizes the four privacy tort categories described in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A: (a) intrusion upon seclusion, (b) appropriation of name or likeness, (c) unreasonable publicity to private life, and (d) false light.
- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an offensive interference with private matters (such as prying into a private place or private affairs); mere publication, without allegations about how the information was wrongfully obtained, does not satisfy this tort.
- Appropriation requires use of another’s identity for the defendant’s benefit in a commercial sense (such as advertising or endorsement); ordinary newspaper publication is not appropriation without allegations of such exploitation.
- Publicity to private life requires disclosure of private facts; a benign photograph that does not reveal private facts does not meet this requirement.
- False light requires publicity that places a person before the public in a materially misleading way; publication of a straightforward, non-defamatory photograph, without misleading implication, does not state the claim.
- Claims for mental suffering tied to publication generally require an underlying invasion of a legally protected interest; courts are cautious about allowing recovery for harms that are purely emotional where the pleaded conduct is not otherwise tortious.

## Conclusion

Nelson v. Times held that a newspaper’s publication of a harmless photograph of a Penobscot infant, without consent but also without allegations of offensive intrusion, commercial use, disclosure of private facts, or misleading portrayal, does not state an invasion-of-privacy claim under Maine law, and the child’s mother cannot recover for mental suffering and humiliation based solely on the publication absent an independent actionable tort.


Nelson v. Times, 373 A.2d 1221 (1977)