This is what a judge might call "commerical interests".
There are two systems in the law: a statutory right of the likeness as property interest and a common-law right to privacy. It would seem this photo violates both of these rights.
The photograph of Anita Sarkeesian was taken by Ben, co-host of #Gamergate aligned podcast "The Drunken Peasants". They have a Youtube channel, Twitter page, and Patreon Account. The Drunken Peasants earn more than $7,500 a month making their broadcasts, plus the 3-5$ of royalties per 1000 views their videos earn on Youtube. That's a lot of beer money!
By taking a photograph of Sarkeesian without her consent and posting it on the @DrunkenPeasants, Podcaster Ben was essentially advertising for his YouTube channel using Sarkeesian's likeness. Ben knew that by posting a photograph of Sarkeesian, Drunken Peasants would get a signal boost from #Gamergate talking heads like Mundane Matt, which they totally did. That would get more viewers on their channel, more publicity for Drunken Peasants, and more money in their pockets.
Podcaster Ben also violated Sarkeesian's common law right of publicity, since he gained from exploiting her likeness in pecuniary and reputational ways. Sarkeesian is notorious amongst the community The Drunken Peasants are broadcasting to. Using Sarkeesian's likeness on his Twitter page boosted Podcaster Ben's standing amongst the #Gamergate anger squad, directing attention to his Patreon and Youtube channel that wouldn't have visited him otherwise. So Ben would seem to have gained both money (as a boost in views) and notoriety for photographing Sarkeesian without asking her first.
Now I'm no Michael Cernovich, but it would seem Sarkeesian's likeness has been exploited here for Ben's personal gain, both in terms of commercial benefit and in e-peen. So it would seem under the laws of Ohio, she might have a case that this constitutes a violation to her right to publicity under statutory and common law. This means Podcaster Ben could face a fine of between 2,500 to 10,000. Which would only set him back like, a month and a half on income.
Comments are closed on this story.