000041986 000__ 02651cam\a22002535i\4500 000041986 001__ 41986 000041986 003__ SzGeWIPO 000041986 005__ 20240708145854.0 000041986 008__ 200622s2018\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d 000041986 022__ $$a0736-7694 000041986 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda 000041986 041__ $$aeng 000041986 1001_ $$aKessler, Madeline A. 000041986 24503 $$aIn the Privacy of One's Own Home :$$bDoes New York State Law Prevent Invasions of Privacy in the Home 000041986 264_1 $$a[New York City, New York] :$$bYeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,$$c2018. 000041986 300__ $$a27 pages 000041986 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent 000041986 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia 000041986 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier 000041986 520__ $$aThis Note will address the conflict between privacy and the First Amendment in invasion of privacy claims such as the one that occurred in Foster. This Note will also address whether an artist who surreptitiously takes photos of an ordinary person in a place in which they have a reasonable expectation to privacy can be protected by the newsworthiness and free speech exception of the New York Civil Rights Law section 51. Part I of this Note explores the history of New York Civil Rights Law section 51, its exceptions, and contrasts it with other states’ invasions of privacy statutes. Part II of this Note discusses the facts of Foster v. Svenson and its implications. Part III of this Note analyzes how the tort of invasion of privacy is treated in Utah and California, states with robust invasion of privacy statutes that have progressively increased protection for their citizens. Part IV compares international invasion of privacy statutes, specifically in France and Australia, to that of New York, to demonstrate how strong statutory privacy rights are enacted while at the same time preserving free speech protections. Part V proposes a solution to the constraints of the Civil Rights Law section 51 posited by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Amending New York Civil Rights Law section 51’s newsworthiness exemption to include the definition of newsworthiness and intrusion on seclusion from the Restatement Second of Torts as well as allowing for judicial discretion to weigh the value in the matter of public interest against the interest in protecting privacy will prevent invasion of privacy claims like that of the plaintiffs’ in Foster v. Svenson from being dismissed before trial without exceedingly abridging artists’ First Amendment rights. 000041986 525__ $$aPublished in : Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law, vol. 36, no. 2 (2018) 000041986 650_0 $$aRight to privacy 000041986 85641 $$uhttp://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/KESSLER_NOTE.pdf$$yView this resource 000041986 904__ $$aJournal article 000041986 980__ $$aBIB