Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘movies film and videos’

Update: court OKs “ghost blurber” case, Sony likely to settle

After a California court of appeals ruled that a class action could go forward against Sony Pictures over its use of quotes from “ghost blurber” David Manning, the company said it was preparing to settle the case. (see Jun. 12, 2001). Judge Reuben Ortega, dissenting from his colleagues’ decision to let the suit proceed, wrote: “This is the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal. Imagine the great contribution this case will make to our quality of life and to justice in America. … A new day will dawn from which time no one will ever again be fooled by a promotion touting a movie as the greatest artistic accomplishment of the ages. From that day on, all persons will be able to absolutely rely on the truth and accuracy of movie ads. No longer will people be seen lurching like mindless zombies toward the movie theatre, compelled by a puff piece. … I cannot see breathing life into this farce. We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true beneficiaries of this disgrace, the attorneys.” (opinion in PDF format).

Last year, Sony agreed to pay the state of Connecticut $325,000 following an investigation by grandstanding state AG Richard Blumenthal. The Connecticut connection that Blumenthal seized on? Well, it was that the (fictitious) Manning had been said to work for a (real) newspaper in Connecticut, the Ridgefield Press. “When the scandal was revealed, the Ridgefield Press demanded only an apology from Sony, which it got. ‘We’re not interested in grubbing money,’ [executive editor Jack] Sanders said. ‘A lot of people suggested we sue, but we’re not that kind of people. We just hope they don’t subpoena us to fly out and testify, unless they’re going to pay for transportation.'” (Emanuella Grinberg, “Moviegoers to settle with studio after being lured by phony critic”, CourtTV, Mar. 8). Update Aug. 3, 2005: Sony settles for $1.5 million.

Filed under: , , ,

Plot premise…

…of the forthcoming movie The Incredibles, from the fabulous animators at Pixar: “Mr. Incredible is a superhero; or he used to be, until a surge of lawsuits against superheroes submitted by the people they’ve saved forced the government to hide them in witness protection programs so they could lead normal, anonymous lives.” (plot summary at IMDB) (teasers and peeks) (via George M. Wallace’s “A Fool in the Forest” blog, Feb. 20; unrelatedly, Wallace also has a Feb. 23 post on bedbug litigation). More on “The Incredibles”: Oct. 25.

Filed under:

“My Big Fat” lawsuit threat

Fox, who was previously on the offense when its sister network Fox News complained about Al Franken’s use of “fair and balanced” (Nov. 22 and links therein), now finds itself subject to a demand letter from Gold Circle Films, who complains that the title “My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé,” a reality prank series that ends Monday, is too similar to the 2002 movie title “My Big Fat Greek Wedding.” (Sarah Hall, “Big Fat Stupid Lawsuit”, E! Online, Feb. 18). Neither the makers of the 1992 Swedish movie “My Big Fat Father” nor, to bring it full circle, Al Franken, who wrote the 1996 book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot,” have commented.

This is not just a 21st-century issue. Urban legend has it that a movie studio complained that the movie “A Night in Casablanca” would be confused with the more memorable Humphrey Bogart movie “Casablanca”; Groucho Marx responded (perhaps as a publicity stunt) in a letter by noting that the Marx Brothers were brothers long before Warner Brothers was using the term. “I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.” (Groucho Marx, 1946).

Filed under: ,

Blockbuster suit: unsafe for adults

“A couple who says their 4-year-old daughter saw hard-core pornography on a PG-rated movie tape from Blockbuster has sued the video company.” The lawsuit, filed in New Jersey, says the rental chain “had a responsibility and a duty to inspect, monitor and ensure the quality and propriety of all video products purchased by its customers.” Blockbuster spokesman Randy Hargrove said “that the company does not carry X- or NC-17-rated movies, and depends on renters to return a tape ‘in the same condition it was given to them.’ ‘Unfortunately there are those rare instances when someone will abuse that privilege and damage one of our tapes,’ he said.” (“Blockbuster sued for porn on PG movie”, AP/CNN, Jan. 24). Reader Jeff Rowes writes: “I haven’t read the complaint, only the CNN story, but the theory of recovery seems to be that Blockbuster has a duty to review every videotape returned after renting to ensure that its contents have not been adulterated with pornography. If adopted, this duty of care would obviously jeopardize Blockbuster’s business because each outlet would need dozens of full time videotape reviewers (or some expensive, as-yet-uninvented technology). It would also create an explosion in fraud as all one would need to recover is a Blockbuster video with a few minutes of porn on it.”

Filed under: , ,

Stallone sued over Rocky movies

I bet you didn’t know that the original “Rocky” movie was inspired by journeyman boxer Chuck Wepner’s 1975 fifteen-round loss to Muhammed Ali in 1975. Which doesn’t bode well for Wepner’s lawsuit: he seems to think he’s entitled to a $15 million cut for that movie and its four sequels for misuse of publicity rights. (A look at Wepner’s web site seems to indicate the ex-con benefits more from publicity from Stallone than Stallone has from publicity from Wepner. I didn’t see any references to Mr. T, however.) One looks in vain for an acknowledgement by the press coverage that the lawsuit has less of a chance than Wepner did against Ali–though readers of Professor Volokh’s weblog know better:

No, it’s not legally actionable for a writer to use your name in honestly describing the inspiration for his work. Even if Stallone is intentionally trying to “capitalize” on this story (not terribly likely, I think, but say it’s so), he’s perfectly entitled to do so, just as biographers or journalists are perfectly to “capitalize” on others’ names and stories when writing their works. Wepner wouldn’t be entitled to get damages from someone who wrote a biography of him (unless the biography was libelous, which isn’t an issue here). He’s likewise not entitled to get damages from someone who was inspired by him in making a movie, and who reveals this inspiration in discussing the movie.

(Dave Anderson, “Bayonne Bleeder Throws a Punch at the Italian Stallion”, New York Times, Nov. 16; Steve Springer, “The Eye of the Lawsuit”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 13; AP, Nov. 13; Eugene Volokh blog, Nov. 10).

Filed under: , ,

FBI probing top Hollywood lawyers

Law enforcement officials think they know why prominent private investigator Anthony Pellicano was so good at turning up dirt about targets of his investigations: they say he used illegal wiretaps. A lot of highly placed Hollywood lawyers purchased Pellicano’s investigative services, and now the FBI is asking: how much did they know about his methods? A grand jury in Los Angeles has been hearing testimony from witnesses. “‘There are many, many nervous people in town,’ said one white-collar defense lawyer familiar with parties involved in the investigation.” Yet another example of why our legal profession is so hard to cast in the role of tribunes of the right to privacy (Henry Weinstein, Greg Krikorian and James Bates, “FBI Probe Shakes Up Hollywood’s Top Lawyers”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 8)(via TalkLeft). Plus: New York Times has more (Bernard Weinraub, “Talk of Wiretaps Rattles Hollywood”, Nov. 11) as do the New York Post (Nov. 12) and AP (Nov. 12). Update Feb. 7, 2006: Pellicano pleads not guilty in 110-count indictment.

Filed under: , ,

Being beastly to bulldozers

Caterpillar Inc., the maker of earthmoving machinery, has sued Disney and Buena Vista Pictures in federal court “hoping to block the Oct. 21 release of the direct-to-DVD movie ‘George of the Jungle 2.'” The movie’s plot, evidently a marvel of originality, pits a hero and his animal sidekicks against evil “industrialists seeking to ravage and destroy the jungle”. As the Peoria paper reports, it seems “the final battle pits George and the animals against an army of Caterpillar Wheel Loaders. It didn’t help, the suit goes on to state, that the movie’s narrator calls the machines ‘maniacal’, ‘deleterious dozers’ and “bulldozing bullies.” How better to dispel an image of bullyhood than by heading to court to demand that speech critical of one’s enterprise be silenced? (Andy Kravetz, “Cat doesn’t dig ‘bulldozing bullies'”, Peoria Journal-Star, Oct. 15; “George of the Jungle, Watch Out for That Lawsuit!”, Reuters/Washington Post, Oct. 15) More: Eugene Volokh comments (Oct. 17).

Filed under: , ,

“Slip ‘N Slide makers sue ‘Dickie Roberts'”

By reader acclaim: “The makers of the Slip ‘N Slide filed a lawsuit Monday over a scene in the hit movie ‘Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star’ that shows actor David Spade skidding to a painful halt on the summertime water toy. … In the movie, Spade jumps belly first on the yellow plastic sheet without first inflating it with air and water,” contrary to guidelines. “He then coats the slide with oil and crashes into a fence. … The company is concerned that the scene might prompt adults to imitate Spade’s action, which could lead to injury and lawsuits.” (CNN, Sep. 8; Ed Finn, “Can Wham-O Sue Over Dickie Roberts?”, Slate, Sept. 10).

Filed under:

Tobacco: AGs push Hollywood self-censorship

“In a stunning, courageous admission that they no longer have any serious work left to do, attorneys general in two dozen states recently sent a letter to the Motion Picture Association of America asking that Hollywood minimize smoking in movies so youngsters won’t be gulled into lighting up.” (Nick Gillespie, “Tinselectomy”, Reason, Aug. 29). Check out Gillespie’s list of other destructive behaviors that Hollywood glamorizes, especially the last item. Supposedly the self-censorship will be voluntary: “We’re not saying any law has been broken,” said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a rather remarkable admission since there is precisely zero reason for any filmmaker to pay attention to this particular grouping of law enforcement functionaries other than the fear that they could cause some sort of legal trouble in the future unless placated. (“States Ask Hollywood to Cut Film Smoking “, AP/Fox News, Aug. 27).

Read On…

Filed under: , , ,

Viacom, Spike Lee kiss and make up

But not until after a publicity bonanza for both sides. Filmmaker Shelton Lee (see Jun. 16-17) now says “I no longer believe that Viacom deliberately intended to trade on my name when naming Spike TV. As an artist and a filmmaker, I feel that protection of freedom of expression is a critical value, and I am concerned that my efforts to stop Viacom from using the Spike TV name could have the unintended consequence of threatening the First Amendment rights of Viacom and others. I am pleased to be able to resolve this matter and be able to work with Viacom on new projects”. (Buzz Johnson, “Spike Lee and Viacom Settle”, FilmStew.com; Washington Post; Hollywood Reporter/Reuters). Earlier, the son of musician Spike Jones filed court papers in the case, saying (per AP) “it is ‘frightening’ that filmmaker Spike Lee is trying to claim exclusive ownership of the name ‘Spike.'” (see The Legal Reader, Jun. 24).

Filed under: ,