In James v.Bob Ross Buick,where James had been fired from a car dealership that then sent letters to customers under his name,James sued for invasion of privacy and the appeals court held that he had a case because:
A)the Ohio Supreme Court has distinguished between the incidental use of a person's name and likeness from appropriation of the benefits associated with a person's identity
B)the Ohio Supreme Court does not distinguish between the incidental use of a person's name and likeness and the appropriation of the benefits associated with a person's identity
C)there is no difference between a person's signature and a person's picture
D)James has agreed to allow the company to use his picture,but not his name
E)none of the other choices

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The appeals court held that James had a case for invasion of privacy because the Ohio Supreme Court had distinguished between the incidental use of a person's name and likeness from appropriation of the benefits associated with a person's identity. This indicates that there is a difference in how the law treats these two situations, and supports James' claim that the dealership's use of his name without his consent was a violation of his privacy.

In James V