By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters)
New York State’s highest court on Thursday rejected Lindsay Lohan’s appeal accusing the maker of “Grand Theft Auto V” of invading her privacy, concluding that video game characters that the actress said were based on her did not resemble her
By a 6-0 vote, the state Court of Appeals called Take-Two Interactive Software Inc‘s depictions “nothing more than cultural comment,” and said it owed Lohan no damages.
A spokesman for Lohan declined to comment. Her lawyer Frank Delle Donne was not immediately available for comment. Take-Two, based in New York, did not respond to requests for comment.
Lohan, 31, had objected to an alleged look- and sound-alike character, Lacey Jonas, who called herself “really famous” and an “actress slash singer” as she tried to hide from paparazzi.
She also objected to depiction of a blonde woman, shown in one image being frisked by a police officer, and in another wearing a red bikini and jewelry, taking a selfie with her cellphone and flashing a peace sign.
In Thursday’s decision, Judge Eugene Fahey said a computer image, or avatar, may constitute a “portrait” to support an invasion of privacy claim under New York civil rights law.
But he said Lohan could not prevail because “Grand Theft Auto V” merely depicted a generic “twenty something” woman, without any suggestion it was her
“The amended complaint was properly dismissed because the artistic renderings are indistinct, satirical representations of the style, look, and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman that are not reasonably identifiable as plaintiff,” Fahey wrote.
In a separate order, the court dismissed similar claims against Take-Two by Karen Gravano, a star of the reality TV series “Mob Wives,” over another character.
Lohan’s movies include 1998’s “The Parent Trap” and 2004’s “Mean Girls,” but acting roles became harder to find following legal and other problems.
The “Grand Theft Auto” series has sold more than 275 million units.
The case is Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc, New York State Court of Appeals, No. 24.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Dan Grebler)