Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
Boston software maker Jenzabar has already sued the makers of a Tienanmen Square documentary on defamation theories, which a court dismissed. But it’s kept the litigation going on trademark infringement theories. [Paul Levy, Consumer Law & Policy; Ron Coleman, Likelihood of Confusion; Boston Globe June report linked earlier]
{ 6 comments }
California Lawyer covers the Nicaraguan pesticide litigation fraud (via California Civil Justice). And Dole has dropped its never-should-have-been-filed lawsuit against a Swedish filmmaker that had promoted the plaintiffs’ case [AP, earlier] More: ShopFloor.
Following the filing of a defamation action in the Indian courts, Bollywood* producers agreed to apologize and remove scenes from a Tamil-language movie that the lawyer-plaintiffs had decried as “opprobrious visual artistic work designed against lawyers and the legal profession” [Times of India and IndiaGlitz via Stephanie West Allen, Idealawg and Robert Ambrogi, LegalBlog Watch; "Sivakasi"]
* Or in this case more accurately “Kollywood” — see comments.
{ 1 comment }
“…for her role in the apple scare. She told me so.” [Elizabeth Whelan, National Post]
{ 6 comments }
Consider these trademark/copyright perils first [Citizen Media Law]
A lawprof wants to apply federal labor law to discourage reality-TV programming involving kids.
{ 6 comments }
{ 4 comments }
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression:
There is a disturbing new trend in censorship legislation. Bills have been introduced in Utah and Louisiana this year that give private citizens the right to sue booksellers and other retailers for committing an “unfair” trade practice by selling “offensive” material to a minor. The defendants in these lawsuits would have to hire a lawyer to defend them and could be forced to pay thousands of dollars if they lost.
Earlier, the governor of Utah vetoed a similar measure aimed at video and game retailers.
The Rev. Jeremiah Cummings, who sued the makers of the film “Religulous” for allegedly portraying him as money-hungry and a charlatan (clip), has himself been sued by two former followers who claim Cummings prevailed on them through a “scheme of deception and lies” to hand over several hundred thousand dollars in donations and investments which he then turned to personal use. [OnPoint News, Courthouse News with PDF link to complaint]
Beyond Borat, bringing barristers bounteous business. [WSJ Law Blog]
{ 1 comment }
{ 1 comment }
{ 1 comment }
The suit mentioned earlier does raise the question: under California’s stringent anti-discrimination Unruh Act, does the entertainer really count as a “business establishment”?
The new king of the infomercial is Vince Offer, whose abrasive ads for, well, $20 rags and overpriced plastic kitchen gadgets have made him millions and won him an extensive YouTube following.
But Offer thinks he’s an actor/writer/director, though has demonstrated little talent for it; his Underground Comedy Movie, starring such lights as Joey Buttafuoco and Angelyne, got risible reviews.
Of note for this page is that he has had even less success as a litigant. In 1998, Offer brought suit against the Farrelly brothers, implausibly claiming that their hit There’s Something About Mary was plagiarized from his movie. (The Farrelly brothers weren’t impressed: “We’ve never heard of him, we’ve never heard of his movie, and it’s all a bunch of bologna.”) Unfortunately, by bringing the suit under federal copyright law, Offer exposed himself to one of the few two-way fee-shifting statutes out there, and a federal judge had little trouble (literally) rubber-stamping a motion for summary judgment and an order requiring Offer to pay over $66 thousand in attorneys’ fees. (Offer v. Farrelly, Case No. CV 98-7697 RAP(RCx) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2000); id. (Mar. 14, 2000)).
Offer’s also brought suit against Anna Nicole Smith, and issued a press release threatening to sue The Church of Scientology, but I’m not inclined to spend $4.75 to learn about those cases.
{ 3 comments }
Rev. Jeremiah Cummings of Orlando wants $50 million from Lionsgate for his unflattering portrayal on screen, saying Bill Maher and his filmmaking team did not level with him about the kind of movie they were making. However, as Matthew Heller notes, similar remorse suits over Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Borat” mostly flopped, with eight of nine thrown out before the discovery stage.
{ 3 comments }
The Bollywood masala homage, Slumdog Millionaire, received ten Oscar nominations today, including one for best picture. It’s an excellent movie, if one forgives the entertainment world’s plot device of having a game show take place live, when in fact virtually all of them are taped.
And where there’s success, there’s those who try to hijack it for their own publicity stunt. Such is the case of Tapeshwar Vishwakarma, who is suing two Indians associated with the movie, A R Rahman and actor Anil Kapoor, claiming that the use of the word “slumdog” is defamatory to Mumbai slumdwellers, and will get a court hearing on February 5. (Kapoor uses the word in the movie.) I know not Indian defamation and free speech law–this strikes me as the sort of issue Salman Rushdie had with people who did not grok the concept of “fiction”–but until this case is dismissed, let us hope Vishwakarma does not get a hold of Huckleberry Finn. (AFP, “Slumdog stars sued for defaming slum-dwellers”, Jan. 22).
“The federal appeals court in Atlanta says a woman who took part in sexually explicit contests at a Daytona Beach, Fla., hotel two months shy of her 18th birthday cannot sue over Internet images of her, even though she was a minor.” [AP; Atlanta Journal-Constitution] We had a discussion of similar, more successful litigation a couple of years ago here and here.
Point of Law Volokh