ABSTRACT
Some states recognize the tort of invasion of privacy, while others limit it to commercial uses of the plaintiff’s name or likeness. In a Colorado case, for instance, the court held that a claim for invasion of privacy by appropriation does not require proof of the value of the plaintiff’s name or likeness and that an appropriation claim will not be sustained against a “self-promotional article” on another person’s felony conviction where the defendant asserts a First Amendment privilege (Joe Dickerson & Associates, LLC v. Dittmar, Colo. Sup. Ct., 34 P.3d 995 (2001)). The court said, “…we hold that the elements of an invasion of privacy by appropriation claim are (a) the defendant used the plaintiff’s name or likeness; (b) the use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness was for the defendant’s own purposes or benefit, commercially or otherwise; (c) the plaintiff suffered damages; and (d) the defendant caused the damages incurred.”
