- Souter’s middle-of-the-road views on litigation didn’t fit conventional patterns [Copland, PoL]
- Champerty and maintenance watch: new fund invests in commercial litigation for a share of the payouts [Fortune mag via Zywicki]
- Report: distributor of “Religulous” film “has served a written settlement proposal” to preacher depicted onscreen [OnPoint News, earlier]
- U.K.: “Homeowner Suit May Stop Village Cricket” [Telegraph via Never Yet Melted]
- Overlawyered sparks a discussion across usual lines on EMTALA, the federal law on emergency medicine [Kennerly]
- Federal Circuit: think twice before proceeding with frivolous appeals [David Bennett, Law.com]
- Father-son duo who have served as key expert witnesses in litigation alleging autism-vaccine link push risky and questionable therapy for the condition [Chicago Tribune and second article and PDF graphic via Orac; Kathleen Seidel]. Waste and harm that go on in the name of treating autism should give pause to many sides in health care debate [Tyler Cowen]
- One “deadbeat dad’s” story [Amy Alkon]. Forthcoming Lifetime reality show sounds like it will showcase harassment of fathers in child support arrears [Fathers and Families via Instapundit]
Posts Tagged ‘movies film and videos’
Miley Cyrus eye-gesture suit, cont’d
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”?
Vince Offer – a ShamWow-tastic litigator
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.
Preacher’s lawsuit: “Religulous” made me look silly
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.
Slumdog Millionaire
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).
“Minor Has No Grounds for Wet T-Shirt Suit, Court Rules”
“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.
The law does not concern itself with trifling pinball-machine depictions
“The unauthorized placement of a pinball machine in a Mel Gibson movie might have technically violated the copyright laws but it is not actionable, a federal judge has ruled.” In the 2000 movie “What Women Want”, a Silver Slugger pinball machine is fleetingly visible in one scene, never for more than a few seconds at a time. Judge Denny Chin sensibly ruled that the pinball maker had no right to sue Paramount for royalties given that the machine is a mere element of the background: “It never appears by itself or in a close-up. It is never mentioned and plays no role in the plot.” (Mark Hamblett, NYLJ). Earlier here, here, etc.
Wheelchairs, theaters, and “comparable viewing angles”
CalBizLit (Dec. 12) provides a guided tour to an area of disabled-rights litigation we’ve touched on several times in the past: see Aug. 1, 2004, Nov. 11, 2003, and links from there.
Dov Charney chronicles, cont’d
Adding color to the legal woes of the controversial American Apparel chief is the identity of the lawyer suing him, Keith Fink, Esq., who’s known for getting negative tidbits about his Hollywood adversaries into the papers. (Alex Ebner, Hollywood Interrupted, Nov. 30; WSJ law blog, Nov. 12). Earlier here, etc.
Batman — a city in Turkey — to sue Dark Knight director
Turns out there’s a city in southeastern Turkey by the name of Batman. And its mayor wants royalties. “‘The royalty of the name “Batman” belongs to us … 
