## Facts

- A Colorado private investigation firm, Joe Dickerson & Associates, LLC, was retained during a child custody dispute to investigate Rosanne Marie (Brock) Dittmar.
- During the investigation, the firm uncovered information about bearer bonds in Dittmar’s possession and reported the matter to law enforcement.
- Dittmar was charged and convicted by a jury of felony theft of $15,000 or more.
- After the criminal case concluded, the firm published an article in its newsletter, *The Dickerson Report*, distributed to law enforcement, attorneys, and others.
- The article identified Dittmar by full name, included her photograph, described the investigation and conviction, and portrayed the matter as a successful recovery of stolen assets.
- Dittmar filed a civil action asserting claims including invasion of privacy by appropriation of name and likeness, defamation, and outrageous conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether Colorado recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy by appropriation of another’s name or likeness, and what elements govern the claim.
2. Whether a plaintiff must prove her name or likeness has independent exploitable value to prevail on an appropriation claim.
3. Whether a publication using a plaintiff’s name and photograph in reporting on a criminal investigation and conviction is protected by the First Amendment as newsworthy speech.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held that invasion of privacy by appropriation of another’s name or likeness is cognizable under Colorado law.
- The Court defined the elements as: (1) use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness; (2) use for the defendant’s own purposes or benefit, commercially or otherwise; (3) damages; and (4) causation.
- The Court rejected any requirement that the plaintiff prove her name or likeness has independent exploitable value.
- The Court held the claim fails where the use is privileged under the First Amendment.
- Because the article reported on Dittmar’s criminal conduct and felony conviction—matters of legitimate public concern—the use of her name and likeness was newsworthy and privileged as a matter of law.
- The Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the defendants on the appropriation claim.

## Legal Principles

- Colorado recognizes the privacy tort of appropriation of name or likeness, consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C.
- “Benefit” in an appropriation claim includes commercial or noncommercial advantages; it is not limited to direct profit.
- A plaintiff need not prove preexisting market or celebrity value in her name or likeness; the focus is on use for the defendant’s purposes or benefit and resulting, caused damages.
- First Amendment privilege bars appropriation liability where the challenged use is newsworthy and relates to matters of legitimate public concern, including reporting on criminal investigations and convictions.
- When the undisputed facts show the publication is newsworthy and privileged, summary judgment is proper.

## Conclusion

Colorado recognized appropriation as a privacy tort and clarified its elements without an exploitable-value requirement, but held that using an individual’s name and photograph in a publication reporting on her crime and conviction is newsworthy speech protected by the First Amendment, warranting judgment for the publisher as a matter of law.


Joe Dickerson & Assocs., LLC v. Dittmar, 34 P.3d 995 (Colo. 2001)