## Facts

- Richard Raymen and Steve Hansen, a same-sex couple, were photographed kissing while waiting to be married at Multnomah County (Oregon) during a period when the county issued same-sex marriage licenses.
- The photograph was published by a local newspaper in print and on its website.
- Mark Montini, working for United Senior Association, Inc. (doing business as “USA Next”), copied the image from the newspaper’s website without plaintiffs’ consent.
- USA Next used the photograph in an online political advertisement targeting AARP, juxtaposing a soldier image marked with a red “X” and plaintiffs’ kiss marked with a green check, under the caption “The Real AARP Agenda.”
- The advertisement ran on a third-party website for several days and linked viewers to USA Next’s site, where donations could be made.
- Plaintiffs alleged the ad exploited their likenesses and falsely associated them with a political agenda, causing humiliation and reputational and emotional harm.
- Plaintiffs sued and sought emergency injunctive relief to stop further use of their image; defendants stated the ad had been removed and they did not intend to reuse the image.

## Issues

1. Whether unauthorized use of plaintiffs’ publicly published photograph in an online advocacy/attack advertisement constituted misappropriation (appropriation of likeness) under applicable privacy tort law.
2. Whether the First Amendment’s protection for political speech on matters of public concern categorically barred liability for misappropriation and related privacy claims.
3. Whether injunctive relief was warranted despite defendants’ removal of the advertisement and claimed intent not to reuse the photo.

## Decision

- The court granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting further use of plaintiffs’ images in the challenged advertising campaign.
- The court found plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the misappropriation/appropriation-of-likeness claim.
- The court found irreparable harm from continued dissemination and association of plaintiffs’ likenesses with defendants’ message.
- The court concluded voluntary cessation did not sufficiently eliminate the risk of recurrence to defeat equitable relief.
- In merits-stage analysis reflected in the reported decision, the court treated misappropriation as a legally cognizable claim even though the use occurred within political advocacy concerning public issues, rejecting a categorical First Amendment immunity theory.

## Legal Principles

- Unauthorized appropriation of an individual’s likeness for an advertising or advocacy campaign may support a misappropriation/invasion-of-privacy claim even when the image was initially taken in a public setting and previously published as news.
- Prior news publication of a photograph does not automatically authorize third parties to repurpose the image for their own promotional or fundraising objectives.
- Political speech receives strong First Amendment protection, but that protection does not operate as a blanket privilege to commandeer private individuals’ likenesses for advocacy; courts assess speech and privacy interests rather than treating political context as dispositive.
- Injunctive relief may issue to prevent future unauthorized uses where defendants’ cessation is voluntary and does not reliably preclude recurrence; narrowly tailored relief may protect privacy interests without broadly restraining the speaker’s viewpoint or message.

## Conclusion

The court restrained further use of plaintiffs’ photograph and recognized that misappropriation-of-likeness claims can proceed even when the challenged use is embedded in political advocacy on matters of public concern, with prior public dissemination of the image and voluntary removal of the ad not foreclosing equitable relief.


Raymen v. United Senior Ass'n, Inc., 409 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2006)