has no interest in limiting disclosure or dissemination of the information.” Id. at 770, 109 S.Ct. 1468 (quotations omitted). Reporters Committee thus requires an examination whether, as a practical matter, the extent of prior public disclosure has eliminated any expectation in privacy. Here, the images are no longer available to the public; they were displayed only twice (once at each Sabían trial); only those physically present in the courtroom were able to view the images; and the images were never reproduced for public consumption beyond those trials. Although descriptive information about what the images contain may now be widely available, there is a distinct privacy interest in the images themselves. See N.Y. Times Co. v. NASA, 920 F.2d 1002, 1006 (D.C.Cir.1990) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), remanded to 782 F.Supp. 628 (D.D.C.1991)
recognizing the possibility but denying relief recognizing the possibility of familys privacy interest in an audiotape of space shuttle challenger astronauts voices just prior to their death even when transcript had already been publicly released holding that time was not compensable where the employer provided but did not require use of a shuttle holding that it was not fatal when the notice of appeal did not state that the transcript had been ordered when in actuality it had been ordered holding that the right of privacy does not attach to matters already within the public domain