Someone asked in class about the Libby Sue Chumley case. She was the teen-aged girl pictured in an ad in TV Guide for an upcoming series on teen pregnancy. The ad said, “Guess what Lori found out today.” It then showed a diary that read, “Dear Diary: I found out today that I’m pregnant. What do I do now?” Below that was a photo of Chumley embracing a young man.

Chumley sued the publisher of TV Guide for falsely implying that she was pregnant. She said she was not pregnant and had never had sex with the young man in the photo or anyone else. She also said neither she nor anyone acting on her behalf had given permission for her photo to be used.

Chumley originally sued for invasion of privacy and libel. A lower court did not grant the privacy claim but did rule the publisher was liable for libel. (How’s that for a tongue-twister?) The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the libel claim. The publisher argued the ad was not “of and concerning” Chumley, since it didn’t use her name. The court didn’t accept that argument, saying the photo clearly identified her and implied it was her, even though the ad used the name “Lori.”

What I can’t tell from information I can find about the case is how Chumley’s photo came to be in the ad. Was she a model, or did someone simply take her photo on the street? It appears she was not a model. If you can find out, let me know!

If Chumley had been a model and had given permission for her photos to be used in ads, do you think she would have won her case?