Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Federal judge gives world-class butt chewing | Main | ACLU and consistency »

More on veteran's suit against Michael Moore

Posted by David Hardy · 1 June 2006 06:13 PM

Here's an article with some legal details. It looks as if CBS, who filmed the initial interview, didn't get a written release (relying upon the implicit consent idea -- if a person consents to be filmed for CBS, he implicitly consents to their airing the footage -- and informed Moore that he was responsible for getting consent from anyone in the footage.

They add they can't imagine Moore going ahead without getting the consent. But as Jason Clarke and I showed in our book (see left margin), he did it in other cases -- taking a letter to the editor and retypesetting it as if it were a headline, under a newspaper's masthead, without their consent. And he lost a suit over false portraying of a fellow in "Roger and Me."

[UPDATE in light of comments on the issue: the suit appears to be for invasion of privacy, or to be precise, two subsets of that. (1) You can't use someone's image for profit (with certain exceptions) unless they consent and (2) you can't hold them out in a "false light" -- as being, or doing, or feeling, that which they aren't. The latter is a little like defamation, but doesn't involve actually *saying* something about them, and can include portrayal that is not necessarily defamatory. Classic example was Moore's loss over Roger and Me. He'd taken a guy, a friend of his, and filmed him at a "Roaring 20s" theme fundraiser for charity. Asked him to say good things about Flint. He took the resulting footage of what looks like a wealthy guy partying in costume and saying Flint is just great, has all thse cultural things, and spliced it next to footage of street people rummaging thru garbage. Not defamatory, because he never *said* "this guy is a crass, rich fellow who is indifferent to all the poverty in Flint," but the court found he certainly created that image.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Sebastian | June 2, 2006 2:23 PM | Reply

Does this lawsuit hinge on 'right of publicity' laws? My understanding is that this isn't a federal matter. Any idea how that aspect works? Can you sue in any state where the film may have aired? Or are you limited in which jurisdictions you can sue? Or is there a federal 'right of publicity' I'm not aware of?

Leave a comment