Decision of Note: <B>CA's USPA Covers Computer-Altered Likeness</B>

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, decided that claims over the use of computer-altered likenesses of the plaintiffs in children's television programming were covered by the Uniform Single Publication Act (USPA), Calif. Civ. Code Sec. 3425.1 et seq. Thus, the claims were barred by California's relevant two-year statute of limitations. Long v. The Walt Disney Co., B164750.

The plaintiffs filed suit 2 years and 1 day after the defendants stopped using the computer-altered images as fictional cartoon characters on ABC broadcasts and in related media. The suit's causes of action included violation of right of publicity, appropriation of likenesses and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs argued that their claims fell outside the USPA because, rather than defamation-like claims based on harm to reputation, the claims were based on emotional distress.

Affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the court of appeal noted, however, that: “California courts have held that the USPA's phrase 'any tort' means exactly that. … Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, dispute that each of the claims before the court sounds in tort and arises from the broadcasts and related Internet activity. Nor can they evade their allegations that their injuries arose from attempts to humiliate, ridicule and defame them. As a result, plaintiffs' claims ' however styled ' are governed by the USPA.”

The plaintiffs then argued that the applicable 2-year statute of limitations should not start to run until they discovered use of their likenesses. But the court of appeal emphasized that “like a publication in a nationally distributed book, newspaper or magazine, the broadcasts on national

television over a period of many months meant that plaintiffs had access to them, if only as members of the general public. … The fact that these plaintiffs did not see the broadcasts does not change that – unlike a report hidden in a credit file, these images were in plain view. … The use of technology here [in morphing the plaintiffs' likenesses that were nevertheless recognizable to the plaintiffs] requires no different result.”

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, decided that claims over the use of computer-altered likenesses of the plaintiffs in children's television programming were covered by the Uniform Single Publication Act (USPA), Calif. Civ. Code Sec. 3425.1 et seq. Thus, the claims were barred by California's relevant two-year statute of limitations. Long v. The Walt Disney Co ., B164750.

The plaintiffs filed suit 2 years and 1 day after the defendants stopped using the computer-altered images as fictional cartoon characters on ABC broadcasts and in related media. The suit's causes of action included violation of right of publicity, appropriation of likenesses and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs argued that their claims fell outside the USPA because, rather than defamation-like claims based on harm to reputation, the claims were based on emotional distress.

Affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the court of appeal noted, however, that: “California courts have held that the USPA's phrase 'any tort' means exactly that. … Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, dispute that each of the claims before the court sounds in tort and arises from the broadcasts and related Internet activity. Nor can they evade their allegations that their injuries arose from attempts to humiliate, ridicule and defame them. As a result, plaintiffs' claims ' however styled ' are governed by the USPA.”

The plaintiffs then argued that the applicable 2-year statute of limitations should not start to run until they discovered use of their likenesses. But the court of appeal emphasized that “like a publication in a nationally distributed book, newspaper or magazine, the broadcasts on national

television over a period of many months meant that plaintiffs had access to them, if only as members of the general public. … The fact that these plaintiffs did not see the broadcasts does not change that – unlike a report hidden in a credit file, these images were in plain view. … The use of technology here [in morphing the plaintiffs' likenesses that were nevertheless recognizable to the plaintiffs] requires no different result.”