Say “CHEESE!” How many times is this dreaded word uttered at family functions? While the resulting pictures may be embarrassing, could the photo ever be a form of harassment or an invasion of privacy? Aaron Olson certainly thought so.
After discovering childhood photos of himself on his uncle’s Facebook page (which his uncle refused to remove), Olson filed a harassment suit in Minnesota state court. Olson claimed that the pictures and his uncle’s comments were a form of harassment because they had “a substantial adverse effect [on his] safety, security, or privacy.” Despite finding the uncle’s comments to be “mean and offensive,” the judge refused to issue a harassment restraining order.
On appeal, Olson took a different approach, arguing that the photos harassed him by violating his privacy. Since Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 1998), Minnesota has recognized three types of invasion-of-privacy torts: “intrusion upon seclusion”, appropriation of one’s name or image, and publication of private facts. Olson also argued that the Facebook postings constituted a fourth form of invasion of privacy that some states have recognized but Minnesota has not — that the postings portrayed him in a “false-light.”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals quickly rejected Olson’s invasion-of-privacy argument because he had not raised it in the lower court. They further stated that since the term “harassment” is already defined in a separate Minnesota statute, Olson’s attempt to prompt a new definition of the term need not be considered.
Ultimately, the court of appeals appeared to agree with the lower court’s finding that innocuous family photos “could not possibly serve as a basis for harassment.” Therefore, much to the relief of amateur photographers throughout the state, Olson’s harassment claims were dismissed.
The entire opinion can be read here: Olson v. LaBrie, 2012 WL 426585 (Minn. App. Ct. Feb. 13, 2012).
Bottom Line
While this case involved a private family dispute rather than an employment matter, the decision does seem to indicate that Minnesota courts are reluctant to rule on behavior that is simply rude or obnoxious. Therefore, while posting awkward photos on Facebook might generate some bad feelings at the next family gathering, they probably won’t have legal consequences unless the photos truly go beyond well beyond embarrassing or awkward.