Top Law Schools

Adaptibar said the correct answer is A because it is defamation. But I can't really figure out the defamatory statement. Doesn't such a statement require harm to reputation? Is the harm to reputation requirement the part I highlighted in red? Seems more like a a privacy tort/appropriation/

A free-lance photographer took a picture of an athlete in front of a shoe store. The athlete was a nationally known amateur basketball star who had received much publicity in the press. At the time, the window display in the shoe store featured "Jumpers," a well-known make of basketball shoes. The photographer sold the picture, greatly enlarged, to the shoe store and told the shoe store that the photographer had the athlete's approval to do so and that the athlete had consented to the shoe store's showing the enlarged picture in the window. The shoe store recklessly believed the photographer and made no effort to ascertain whether the athlete had given his consent to the photographer. In fact, the athlete did not even know that the photographer had taken the picture. The shoe store put the enlarged picture in the window with the display of "Jumpers" shoes. The college that the athlete attended believed that the athlete had intentionally endorsed the shoe store and "Jumpers" shoes and subsequently canceled his athletic scholarship.

If the athlete asserts a claim based on defamation against the shoe store, will he prevail?

A. Yes, because the shoe store was reckless in accepting the photographer's statement that the photographer had the athlete's approval.
B. Yes, because the defamatory material was in printed form.
C. No, because the shoe store believed the photographer's statement that the photographer had the athlete's approval.
D. No, because the picture of the athlete was not defamatory per se.

6TimeFailure wrote:Adaptibar said the correct answer is A because it is defamation. But I can't really figure out the defamatory statement. Doesn't such a statement require harm to reputation? Is the harm to reputation requirement the part I highlighted in red? Seems more like a a privacy tort/appropriation/

A free-lance photographer took a picture of an athlete in front of a shoe store. The athlete was a nationally known amateur basketball star who had received much publicity in the press. At the time, the window display in the shoe store featured "Jumpers," a well-known make of basketball shoes. The photographer sold the picture, greatly enlarged, to the shoe store and told the shoe store that the photographer had the athlete's approval to do so and that the athlete had consented to the shoe store's showing the enlarged picture in the window. The shoe store recklessly believed the photographer and made no effort to ascertain whether the athlete had given his consent to the photographer. In fact, the athlete did not even know that the photographer had taken the picture. The shoe store put the enlarged picture in the window with the display of "Jumpers" shoes. The college that the athlete attended believed that the athlete had intentionally endorsed the shoe store and "Jumpers" shoes and subsequently canceled his athletic scholarship.

If the athlete asserts a claim based on defamation against the shoe store, will he prevail?

A. Yes, because the shoe store was reckless in accepting the photographer's statement that the photographer had the athlete's approval.
B. Yes, because the defamatory material was in printed form.
C. No, because the shoe store believed the photographer's statement that the photographer had the athlete's approval.
D. No, because the picture of the athlete was not defamatory per se.

Hah... I remember this question (Themis taker)

I agree with you that it sounds more like a privacy tort and this is a bad question.

Frankly I chose A because everything else was wrong. But a defamatory statement is anything that diminishes respect/goodwill, so I could see an argument that a NCAA athlete's goodwill/reputation is harmed when somebody says he accepted money. In other words, amateurism is the goodwill and motto of the NCAA and its athletes, which the alleged sponsorship detrimentally harmed. Chris Webber & Michigan?

.

Why is it a statement? He was wearing the shoes, and the ad didn't say he was being paid by Jumpers? I doubt any court would hold the court showing a poster they were given before being told to take it down would be grounds for a defamation suit. Essentially, shoe stores would have to call every athlete who shows up on promotional materials. Picture a ma and pa sneaker store incessantly trying to get in touch with Michael Jordan to make sure he renewed his contract with Nike.

.

jrass wrote:Why is it a statement? He was wearing the shoes, and the ad didn't say he was being paid by Jumpers? I doubt any court would hold the court showing a poster they were given before being told to take it down would be grounds for a defamation suit. Essentially, shoe stores would have to call every athlete who shows up on promotional materials. Picture a ma and pa sneaker store incessantly trying to get in touch with Michael Jordan to make sure he renewed his contract with Nike.

The ad doesn't have to say anything. A statement can be defamatory by innuendo. Moreover, pictures can convey an actionable defamatory meaning.

This isn't comparable to Michael Jordan at all, either, because Jordan was a professional athlete. The statement/picture is defamatory in this case because it involves an amateur athlete and the principles of "amateurism" (making it a really unnecessarily tough question for people who don't know about this, as talked about already)