Photo, a freelance photographer, took a picture of Player in front of Shoe Store. Player was a nationally known amateur basketball star who had received much publicity in the press. At the time, the window display in Shoe Store featured "Jumpers," a well-known make of basketball shoes. Photo sold the picture, greatly enlarged, to Shoe Store and told Shoe Store that Photo had Player's approval to do so and that Player had consented to Shoe Store's showing the enlarged picture in the window. Shoe Store made no effort to ascertain whether Player had given his consent to Photo. In fact, Player did not even know that Photo had taken the picture. Shoe Store put the enlarged picture in the window with the display of "Jumpers" shoes. The college that Player attended believed that Player had intentionally endorsed Shoe Store and "Jumpers" shoes, and the college cancelled his athletic scholarship."If Player asserts a claim based on invasion of privacy against Shoe Store, will Player prevail?
Yes, because Photo had no right to take Player's picture.  Yes, because Shoe Store, without Player's permission, used Player's picture for profit.  No, because Player was already a basketball star who had received much publicity in the press.  No, because Shoe Store believed it had permission to put the picture in the window