The man demanded that the photo not be publicized, the photographer promised, the paper published - and now the paper will pay.

The Supreme Court awarded the man 30,000 shekels plus court costs, after a series of appeals.

The story began in 1992, when Menashe Tzaddik, a hareidi-religious Jew, set up a stand in downtown Tel Aviv at which to distribute Jewish religious books. A passing Israel Prize winner in photography chose an angle at which the man could be seen standing on the backdrop of a store window poster featuring an immodest and suggestive scene - and snapped the picture.

Tzaddik protested and demanded that the photo not be publicized, and the photographer promised to abide by his wishes and use it only for his own personal use. But he did not do so.

When Mr. Tzaddik later learned that the Haaretz newspaper had actually published the photo, in spite of the photographer's promises, he took both the paper and the photographer to court.  The man claimed that his privacy was invaded and that the picture represented slander. 

Magistrates Court: Tzaddik is Right

The Magistrates Court judge ruled that there was no slander, but that the plaintiff's privacy was invaded, and awarded him 30,000 shekels. She then deducted 10,000 shekels from the damages, however, explaining that Tzaddik shared in the fault in choosing to stand where he did.

District Court: Haaretz was OK

However, Haaretz appealed the ruling to the District Court, which found in favor of Haaretz - in that Tzaddik should have understood the ramifications of the positioning of his bookstand.

Tzaddik did not give up, however, and turned to the Supreme Court.  His lawyers argued that the key point was not where he stood or what picture was taken - but rather that the photographer had violated his promise not to publish the photo.  The lawyers stated that this was a violation of the law that defines invasion of privacy as "a violation of secrecy regarding one's private matters that was determined in a clear or implied agreement."

Supreme Court: Tzaddik Wins

The Supreme Court ruled that this was a cogent argument, and even reinstated the 10,000 shekels that the original court had deducted - in that the man's "contribution" in standing where he did was not relevant to the subsequent violation of his privacy.  Haaretz must thus pay Tzaddik 30,000 shekels and court costs.