Joe Dickerson & Associates, LLC v. Dittmar

Colorado Court of Appeals · 2000 · Torts

9 P.3d 1145 (2000)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsInvasion of privacyAppropriation of name or likenessSummary judgmentappropriationname or likenessprivacycommercial benefit

Facts

Defendants, a private investigation firm and its principal, investigated plaintiff during a child custody dispute and later reported information to law enforcement, leading to plaintiff's conviction for theft of $15,000 or more. After the conviction, defendants published an article about the case in their newsletter, "The Dickerson Report," which included plaintiff's name and photograph and described defendants' role in the investigation. The publication also prominently displayed defendants' business name, contact information, credentials, and practice areas, and 2,600 copies were mailed to attorneys, financial institutions, investigators, regulators, and others. It was undisputed that plaintiff was identifiable and that defendants used her name and photograph without her consent.

Issue

Does Colorado recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy by appropriation of another's name or likeness, and if so, did defendants show entitlement to summary judgment where they published plaintiff's name and photograph in a business newsletter allegedly promoting their services?

Rule

A person is subject to liability for invasion of privacy if the person appropriates to his or her own use or benefit the name or likeness of another. Liability requires appropriation to the defendant's use or benefit of the plaintiff's reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, public interest, or other values associated with the plaintiff's name or likeness. Use in a noncommercial, newsworthy article or use that is merely incidental does not ordinarily support the tort, but use to advertise the defendant's business or otherwise obtain the defendant's own benefit may support liability; the plaintiff need not be famous.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A private forensic accounting firm in Phoenix mails a glossy quarterly bulletin to bankruptcy lawyers and lenders. The cover story recounts a recent embezzlement prosecution, names Tara Molina, shows her headshot from the courthouse, and appears beside the firm's logo, staff credentials, contact information, and a banner reading "Recovering Hidden Assets for Business Clients." Tara never consented.

If Tara sues for invasion of privacy by appropriation of her name or likeness, which is the strongest argument against summary judgment for the firm?

Explanation. The governing rule is that liability may exist when a defendant appropriates another's name or likeness to the defendant's own use or benefit, especially to advertise a business or for a similar promotional purpose. Fame is not required, and the public nature of the underlying events does not automatically defeat an appropriation claim. Where a publication is branded with the defendant's business identity and may function as self-promotion, summary judgment is improper because the purpose of the use and the defendant's benefit are factual issues. (Derived from Joe Dickerson & Associates, LLC v. Dittmar (2000).)