## Facts

- Twentieth Century Fox released *The Sandlot* (1993), a comedic coming-of-age fictional film about boys playing baseball in the 1960s San Fernando Valley.
- A character in the film is named “Michael Palledorous,” nicknamed “Squints,” portrayed as a brash team leader involved in humorous childhood antics.
- Michael Polydoros, a private individual and former schoolmate of the film’s writer/director, alleged the character’s name, a childhood photo-like appearance (including eyeglasses and clothing), and general activities (sandlot baseball, community pool swimming, brash behavior) resembled him.
- Polydoros conceded the film was fiction and asserted no financial damages from the film’s release.
- Polydoros sued Fox and related filmmakers/distributors for commercial appropriation of identity (right of publicity), invasion of privacy, negligence, and defamation.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the film and characters constitutionally protected speech and not defamatory.
- Polydoros appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether depicting a fictional character with similarities in name and likeness to a private person in a motion picture constitutes actionable commercial appropriation/right-of-publicity liability.
2. Whether such depiction constitutes invasion of privacy by appropriation/misappropriation of identity.
3. Whether the film’s depiction of the “Squints” character is defamatory (or otherwise actionable as reputational harm) as to the plaintiff.
4. Whether constitutional free-expression protections bar the asserted tort claims based on the film’s fictional, expressive content.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held that releasing a patently fictional motion picture did not invade the plaintiff’s privacy and, in any event, was protected by federal and state constitutional free-expression guarantees.
- The court rejected the right-of-publicity/commercial appropriation theory because the challenged use occurred within an expressive work rather than as a product endorsement or advertisement.
- The court held the film was not defamatory as a matter of law, including because reasonable viewers would understand it as fiction and not as factual assertions about the plaintiff.
- The court noted the resemblance was limited (name, appearance, and general childhood activities) and did not amount to a detailed or accurate depiction of the plaintiff’s life.

## Legal Principles

- Expressive works such as fictional motion pictures receive strong constitutional protection; tort claims premised on a character’s resemblance to a real person are limited to avoid burdening protected expression.
- Right-of-publicity/commercial appropriation liability generally requires commercial exploitation of a person’s identity (such as endorsement or advertising), not mere inclusion of a character within an expressive narrative.
- Privacy-by-appropriation claims fail where the alleged use is within a patently fictional expressive work and does not amount to a realistic or identifying depiction that overcomes constitutional protections.
- Defamation requires a publication reasonably understood as stating or implying defamatory facts “of and concerning” the plaintiff; fictional portrayals that do not reasonably identify the plaintiff as the subject, and are not understood as factual assertions, are not actionable.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the filmmakers because the challenged depiction occurred in a patently fictional, constitutionally protected motion picture, did not amount to actionable commercial exploitation of the plaintiff’s identity, did not invade privacy on these facts, and was not defamatory as a matter of law.


Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 67 Cal. App. 4th 318 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)