The man and the online sign generator are probably both guilty of misappropriation of the boy’s likeness and invasion of privacy in this case. Invasion of privacy (also called “false light invasion of privacy”) in the internet context involves a showing that publicized information on the Internet was done by using false information that was highly offensive. When the conduct involves someone using a picture or image of someone else on the Internet, the injured person must prove that their image was digitally manipulated to create a false impression about the person identified in the image. The use of the boy’s repurposed image with false comments probably constitutes an invasion of privacy in this case. In proving misrepresentation of likeness on the Internet, an injured person must show that someone else used their identity for their own advantage (i.e. commercially) and that their identity was used without permission and this caused them an injury. In this case, the online sign generator probably misappropriated the boy’s likeness because it commercially exploited his identity without his consent. In cases involving a charge of defamation, an injured party must show that someone else published a false statement about them that damaged their reputation. Internet defamation cases are very hard to prove because of the wide breath given to the First Amendment right of free speech. In this case, the boy might have a difficult time proving online defamation because he would have to prove that the false statements that were added to his picture damaged his reputation, i.e. that a regular person who read the statements would think less of him after they read them and saw his picture.