2020 Ohio 1642
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Anne C. Harvey (an attorney) previously was sued by buyers (Seitz) over undisclosed termite damage; a jury awarded the buyers damages, and the case generated press coverage and an appeal that concluded in 2015.
- Training Cove (an online continuing-education provider owned by Claudia and Steve Jordan) included three slides about the Seitz case in a 2015 Ohio CE course; the slides named Harvey, summarized the underlying facts, and described the jury verdict.
- The course materials referenced Harvey in 3 slides within an ~200‑page class; the slides used stock photos and drew on news/online court materials.
- Harvey discovered the slides in November 2017 and filed suit in December 2017 asserting false light, defamation (later dismissed), negligence, and a statutory right‑of‑publicity claim under R.C. 2741.02, among other theories; the operative claims at summary judgment were false light and the R.C. 2741.02 claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees, holding (1) Harvey’s false light claim was time‑barred by the one‑year statute of limitations applicable to defamation (because the allegations overlapped), and (2) the R.C. 2741.02 claim was exempted because the slides were newsworthy/reporting and therefore not a commercial appropriation.
- The appellate court affirmed: it agreed false‑light claims that overlap with defamation are subject to the one‑year defamation SOL, and that R.C. Chap. 2741 exemptions (newsworthy/reporting) barred recovery on the statutory publicity claim; the qualified‑privilege issue was moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harvey's false‑light claim is time‑barred | Harvey: false light is distinct from defamation and should have the longer 4‑year SOL | Jordans: the slides’ allegations would also support defamation, so the 1‑year defamation SOL applies | Court: where allegations would support both defamation and false light, the 1‑year defamation SOL applies; false‑light claim barred |
| Whether use of Harvey’s name/likeness violated R.C. 2741.02 (statutory right of publicity) | Harvey: the slides used her persona without consent and R.C. 2741.02 applies even if she is not a "celebrity" | Jordans: the slides were informational/newsworthy and exempt under R.C. 2741.09 and R.C. 2741.02(D)(1); no evidence Harvey’s persona has commercial value | Court: slides were newsworthy/connected to reporting on a matter of public interest and fit statutory exemptions; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether defendants are protected by qualified privilege (R.C. 2317.05) | Harvey: privilege should not shield the defendants because the presentation mischaracterized her conduct | Jordans: publication of a fair and impartial report of court proceedings is privileged unless malicious | Court: issue not decided—moot given disposition on SOL and R.C. 2741 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (recognizes the tort of false light adopting Restatement §652E)
- Zacchini v. Scripps‑Howard Broadcasting Co., 47 Ohio St.2d 224 (Ohio right of publicity/invasion‑of‑privacy foundation)
- ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir.) (discusses limits of right of publicity and First Amendment considerations)
- West v. Media Gen. Convergence, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn.) (holds false‑light claims subject to libel/slander statutes of limitation)
- Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619 (6th Cir.) (requires plaintiff to show commercial value/recognition to prevail on publicity claims)
- James v. Bob Ross Buick, Inc., 167 Ohio App.3d 338 (2d Dist.) (distinguishes incidental use of a name from actionable appropriation; discusses proof of damages)