The Sandlot (1993) – Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox Film

A non-celebrity sued the makers and distributors of The Sandlot (Twentieth Century Fox 1993), claiming the filmmakers invaded his privacy by appropriating his name and likeness.

Appellant Michael Polydoros grew up in a setting similar to that described in the film. He was a schoolmate of David Mickey Evans, who wrote and directed The Sandlot. A photograph of Polydoros from the 1960s is similar to a photograph of the Palledorous character in the movie, right down to the eyeglasses and the color and design of his shirt.

Polydoros played baseball with friends on a sandlot when he was a child, swam in a community pool like the one shown in the movie, and was somewhat obstreperous, like the “Squints” character. Other than the similarity in names and attire, the enjoyment of baseball and swimming, and the brash nature of “Squints,” Polydoros could not point to any other aspects in which the film accurately depicted his life. He conceded that the work is fiction and that he had not been financially damaged by the motion picture.

The Lawsuit

Piqued by the similarities in name and by the physical likeness of the “Squints” character to himself as a child, Polydoros filed suit in March 1994. The complaint asserted causes of action for commercial appropriation of identity, invasion of privacy, negligence, and defamation.

Polydoros alleged that the nickname “Squints” used in the film “is a blatantly derogatory moniker derived from the thick glasses the character wears throughout the film,” and that people began teasing him by calling him “Squints.” He felt embarrassed and humiliated by the nickname. To make matters worse, in his view, the filmmakers used the “Squints” Palledorous character as their principal advertising image for the film.

The Court’s Analysis and Ruling

In January 1996, both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the filmmakers on March 25, 1996.

The court found that their film and the characters it portrayed were protected speech under the federal and state Constitutions. It concluded that The Sandlot is demonstrably a work of fiction which does not defame Polydoros as a matter of law. The California Court of Appeal later affirmed this judgment.

From the opinion:

• The court noted there was a marked difference in age and appearance between the real Michael Polydoros, then around 40, and the 10-year-old character “Squints” Palledorous. No reasonable viewer could confuse the two.
• It found that merely having some shared boyhood activities (playing baseball, swimming) and personality traits (being brash) did not make the film about Polydoros. These were viewed as universal childhood experiences, not private facts.
• The filmmakers’ use of “Squints” in promotional materials was deemed simply an adjunct to the exhibition of the film, protected by the same First Amendment rights. As the opinion summarized:
  “Because respondents were creating a fictionalized artistic work, their endeavor is constitutionally protected. This right was not diminished when respondents advertised and then sold their work as mass public entertainment.”
• On defamation, the court dismissed Polydoros’s complaint that being called things like “little pervert,” “pretty crappy,” and “reject” was actionable. It found these were rhetorical hyperbole typical of playground banter, not statements of fact that could be defamatory.

Final Judgment

The court ultimately concluded that The Sandlot did not invade Polydoros’s privacy, misappropriate his identity for commercial purposes, or defame him. It ruled that the film was a clearly fictional work and fully protected by constitutional guarantees of free expression. The judgment in favor of the defendant filmmakers was affirmed.