Kenneth Clements, Former Florida Student, Sues School Paper For Using His Photo In STD Story

Kenneth Clements, a former student at Ronald Reagan High School in Miami, Fl., claims the school paper, the Reagan Advocate, used his photo without his consent in a story about STDs, the Courthouse News Service reports.

According to the report, Clements accuses the school paper of making him "the poster child for a teen with sexually transmitted disease" when it ran the story "Teens Stay Quiet About STD's" with a photo of him with an "X" over his mouth.

Since then, Clements has filed a suit against the school district, saying that since the article students teased him, calling him "STD Boy," a blog by the Miami Herald reports.

The suit claims that the "X" placed over Clements' mouth implies he was hiding a sexually transmitted disease, and that he suffered "injury to his reputation" because of it.

The paper contacted Miami-Dade Public Schools spokesperson John Schuster, who declined to comment due to the potential litigation.

Clement's lawyer, Harry Shevin, told the paper he didn't know why the boy's photo was chosen for the story, but that he "doesn't rule out" bullying.

On the school's website, they list the Reagan Advocate's mission statement:

The Reagan/Advocate staff pledges to:

Publish articles that will not disparage any individual and will not interfere with rights of privacy. We publish this newspaper for the student body, faculty, and community members. No articles will convey bias or be based on personal motives. All articles will have well supported and developed arguments. We will not take credit for the work and publication of others. We agree to support school spirit by attending and reporting on school events. All material included in The Reagan Advocate is intended to inform, entertain and communicate to the public.

Comments

[Sultry]

07:06 PM on 01/30/2012

This is exactly the kind of bullying that makes kids go off and do something that has everyone wondering what pushed them over the edge.

[anchises868]

05:56 PM on 01/30/2012

The person in the picture does not own the picture or the rights to its use, the person who took it does. The person in the picture has no say in how it is used, so the paper has no responsibility to him. (Indeed, it's key to how the paparazzi functions.) However, the photographer who took the picture has a responsibility to the person in the picture and should be nailed to the wall for allowing the subject to be used inappropriately.

[Sultry]

07:01 PM on 01/30/2012

The person in the photo owns the right, not the taker of a photo. That is why models have to sign a release form. and legitimate photographers have you sign a photo release form. Their is one exception and that is if the person is a public figure and in public.
So no one can take your photo unless your famous and do pretty much what they want with it. You have a right to get paid, or say no you can't use my image for that purpose. Even studio audiences sign a release form. The only thing the photo taker owns once your image is on the film is the camera. That's why some stars have their guards grab a camera and snatch the film out.

[anchises868]

08:17 PM on 01/30/2012

Absolutely, 100% not true. The photographer owns the copyright to a photo he or she has taken unless it is a work for hire, then "authorship" depends on the contract for the work. Check 17 USC 201 if you want the source.

The source of the release forms has to do with where copyright law intersects privacy law. The entities peddling the release forms are usually doing it as a "cover their butts" measure to prevent someone from claiming their privacy was infringed upon, but it's not a requirement for the subject to sign a release before publishing the photograph.

Public figures have a smaller area in which they maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the same laws apply. Any guard who grabbed a camera and snatched the film or memory card would be subject to severe civil liability issues.

[areuserious1]

07:25 AM on 02/16/2012

Totally incorrect!! Why do you find the movie stars sueing constantly for pictures and news? Enough said? Do you work for the national enquirer or something?

[anchises868]

10:59 AM on 02/17/2012

Your knowledge of the law is exceeded only by your knowledge of spelling and grammar. Good day to you!

[stopnlisten]

01:11 PM on 01/29/2012

In our school, the teacher and principal are not allowed by law to edit the paper unless there is profanity. They can be sued for that kind of interference. Now they are saying a kid can sue if the paper isn't edited. Catch-22.

[longnkrnch]

11:43 AM on 01/28/2012

I think he has a case.

[Sultry]

12:26 PM on 02/02/2012

If I were on the jury not only would he win his case He would win enough to carry him and several generations in a Luxury lifestyle. What these bullies did will follow this young man for life. It will never be funny and hurt his reputation in the community for life. For that I would make them pay for the rest of their lives.

[MrOnePercent2012]

11:33 AM on 01/28/2012

Someone is just a little too thin skinned.

[Mikey Ritter]

12:11 PM on 01/28/2012

what planet are you on? Uranus? There was absolutley no excuse to use this boy's picture without his consent. And to use his picture in context with STD? Thin skinned or not, it was still wrong.

[Linda D Schlicher]

01:13 PM on 01/28/2012

You definitely have issues. Perhaps you yourself were guilty of bullying and so cannot understand that it is wrong.

[MrOnePercent2012]

01:20 PM on 01/28/2012

Whatever....

[esaustew]

11:04 AM on 01/28/2012

STD Boy would be really hard to live with.

Instead of the crowd chanting "Rudy, Rudy , Rudy" it would be "STD, STD, STD."

[Sultry]

12:36 PM on 02/02/2012

That' why he should win his case.

[Dana S]

10:39 AM on 01/28/2012

Unfatomable , no one should be subjected to that ridicule .

[MrOnePercent2012]

11:33 AM on 01/28/2012

No biggie.

[Mikey Ritter]

12:14 PM on 01/28/2012

no biggie to you, it didn't happen to you. Just get labeled STD Boy, kidding or not... it sticks. Maybe you can handle it, others might not. It's still no way to go thru HS with that kind of label.. Though he's out now, it was still wrong not to get his permission.

[thefighting39th]

09:16 AM on 01/28/2012

oh this kid is so screwed in school --- are you kidding ---- "hey babe -- would you like to go to the prom with me?" --- "EWWWWW NO WAY STD BOY!"

[Sultry]

12:39 PM on 02/02/2012

He is screwed for life. Can you imagine the co-woker that hates him posting that photo in the employee lunch room? He will never live this down.

[Angrykitteh]

08:12 AM on 01/28/2012

Whether the student should sue or not is debatable. However, to use his photo without permission is irresponsible journalism at the very least.

[Freedomaphile]

06:26 PM on 01/30/2012

So what is your solution.

[Behaviour Problem]

03:41 AM on 01/28/2012

Yea right, when some kid is hit with a rumor his "reputation" is at stake. Lol. Not. Sooner or later the lesson is learned that you cannot have affairs with co-workers etc. and or build reputations in this environment. May be it's saying he's the 4of5 that'll get an STD.

[Angrykitteh]

08:14 AM on 01/28/2012

"Yea right, when some kid is hit with a rumor his "reputatio­n" is at stake. Lol. Not."

What rock do you live under? Kids in school these days can be merciless.

[Jmpr143]

08:53 AM on 01/28/2012

Kids in school were always merciless, and bullying always occurred. We all lived and got over it. Kids these days need to be taught that the kids bullying you today are going to mean little to nothing in your life. That's what everyone I grew up with was taught and we're all still standing!

[elaine tomkinson]

03:01 AM on 01/28/2012

Where was the students advisor when they decided to do this? all student newspapers must have a teacher for an advisor ........and they must ok everything that goes into the paper....student newspapers are censored and rightly so.........someone dropped the ball on this one!

[stopnlisten]

01:12 PM on 01/29/2012

Not at our school. You can advise but not enforce. Lots of lawyer parents that stirred up that pot.

[hman570]

02:56 AM on 01/28/2012

I guess kids learn early how to get a big payday.

[MrOnePercent2012]

11:34 AM on 01/28/2012

Just what I was thinking.

[Steve68112]

02:24 AM on 01/28/2012

This is exactly the sort of story where if the editor could not decide what photo to use they should have used one of themselves. Why don't these editors ever seem to think of that? And if they don't like that, perhaps they should not have used one at all...

[Sultry]

07:39 PM on 02/17/2012

My thought exactly. In fact they could have used the silhouette of head that did not define race, or gender, because a STD does not discriminate.

[ihuber1]

01:26 AM on 01/28/2012

Future Huff Post journalist... Person who wrote the story for school paper.

[lightninbob1]

06:39 AM on 01/28/2012

After reading some HP articles I would say already working for them.

[MrOnePercent2012]

11:34 AM on 01/28/2012

LOL

[mugwhump]

01:22 AM on 01/28/2012

Sue the principal and the papers' editor. Don't blame the school system. My high school papers' editor was a teacher. School papers are a joke anyway.