## Facts

- Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. filmed several employees, including Brad Bauman, describing household chores they disliked; participants were not identified by name, title, or job duties.
- Marriott later edited the footage into a sexually suggestive comedy by adding a prompt implying the speakers were describing sex with their partners while their original chore descriptions played as audio.
- The edited video was shown at a company Christmas party attended by roughly 200 employees and guests, including Bauman and his wife, Cassedy Stien.
- Stien’s name, image, and voice did not appear in the video, and the video did not expressly identify her.
- Stien claimed viewers who recognized Bauman would infer the “partner” referenced was Stien, effectively using her identity “by reference.”
- Stien and Bauman sued Marriott and several employees for invasion of privacy; the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims.
- Stien appealed, challenging dismissal of her appropriation and related privacy claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff can prove appropriation of name or likeness when the defendant used only the spouse’s image and statements, and the plaintiff was allegedly identified only by inference as the spouse.
2. Whether intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, or false light can be established by a plaintiff who was not depicted, named, or directly discussed in the publication.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- The court held Stien could not recover for appropriation because defendants did not use Stien’s name, likeness, or other direct indicia of her identity.
- The court rejected liability based on derivative identification through Bauman’s relationship to Stien.
- The court also found no triable claim for intrusion, public disclosure, or false light as to Stien because the video did not intrude into, disclose, or portray Stien.

## Legal Principles

- Appropriation of name or likeness requires a defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s own identity (e.g., name, image, or comparable identifying attribute), not merely use of a related person’s identity from which the plaintiff might be inferred.
- A privacy claim based on intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional, substantial intrusion into the plaintiff’s private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Public disclosure of private facts requires publicity of private facts about the plaintiff; inferred connections from audience members’ outside knowledge do not supply disclosure of the plaintiff’s private facts.
- False light requires publicity that places the plaintiff before the public in a highly offensive false position; a plaintiff not depicted or identified is not placed in public view for this tort.
- Summary judgment is proper where, even viewing the record favorably to the plaintiff, no reasonable jury could find the defendant committed the elements of the claimed privacy torts as to that plaintiff.

## Conclusion

Because the video neither named nor depicted Stien and any association to her depended on viewers’ independent knowledge of Bauman’s marriage, Stien’s alleged harm was derivative and did not satisfy the elements of appropriation or other invasion-of-privacy torts; summary judgment for defendants was affirmed.


Stien v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., 944 P.2d 374 (Utah Ct. App. 1997)