It was Dr. Phil....his ex was on there for a program about weight loss controversies or something along those lines and she was showing pictures of her when she was skinny and then as she gained weight. One of the pictures she used was one of herself with him. His name was never spoken, I don't think. I didn't actually see it, just saw it on the web. And he had a few calls from people he used to work with that recognized him.
======================================
My response:
While California does have a "privacy" law in this regard, found under California Code of Civil Procedure section 3344, my opinion would be that he has no cause of action - - or, if he does, it's "shaky" or "iffy" at best.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 3344 is summarized as follows:
"Anyone using another's "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness" for commercial purposes without consent is liable for the injured party's actual damages or $750, whichever is greater."
The problem, however, is that the "show" did not use the picture for their commercial purposes - - SHE used the picture for her own purposes by way of example. Also, the use of the picture was probably momentary, at best. Besides, she is the owner of the picture, and can use it as she pleases.
Additionally, I don't even believe it was an invasion of privacy because the tenor of the Dr. Phil Show is educational, despite the "glitziness" of the format, as opposed to a sterile classroom setting. Since it was used for educational purposes, and since your husbands portion of the picture was tangential, at most, then there is a privileged material protection.
So, no. If your husband was thinking of doing something, I don't believe he'd get very far. Besides, there were no "actual damages" suffered by your husband, and $750.00 isn't even enough for your round trip tickets to file in a California Small claims court.
Hey, it was a nice try though.
IAAL
