No 'Air Jordan' to Help, 7th Cir. Slam Dunks Scottie Pippen's Libel Suit

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit this week upheld the trial court's dismissal of former Chicago Bulls great Scottie Pippen's defamation suit against several broadcasting and Internet defendants who allegedly erroneously reported he had filed for bankruptcy.

In the nine-page ruling in Pippen v. NBC Universal Media LLC et al (Case No. 12-3294), Judge Frank Easterbrook said the Basketball Hall of Fame Forward had failed to satisfy the elevated burden of proof of actual malice that public figures must meet in defamation claims, which means showing that the media defendants published the purportedly false statements knowing they were untrue or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

The 48-year-old Pippen filed suit in 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illionis (see "TUOL" post 12/29/11) alleging that the defendants falsely reported that he had sustained $120 million in financial losses and had filed for bankruptcy, which he claimed cost him fees from endorsements and personal appearances.

"Since Pippen's opportunities diminished after the statements were made," Judge Easterbrook wrote, "he believes they must have diminished because the statements were made. This theory of causation is weak for professional athletes, whose earnings related to past stardom drop as time passes since their playing days."

Judge Easterbrook's opinion also rejected Pippen's argument that the defendants were liable for not correcting the false information about his financial well-being in online accounts. "[E]xcluding the Internet from the single publication rule would eviscerate the statute of limitations and expose online publishers to potentially limitless liability," Judge Easterbrook concluded.

Under the single publication rule, subsequent circulation of an allegedly libelous story does not create fresh claims of defamation; rather, the claim for relief for defamation is complete when the initial publication occurs. Evidently, Pippen's  court appearances require Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson to be successful.

Tip of the hat to THR, Esq. Web site for its full-court press on this story.

Beauty Queen Wants World Peace, $5m to Pay Libel Award

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Retired U.S. District Court Magistrate Theodore Katz has sided with the Miss Universe L.P. pageant operator in an arbitration against former contestant and Miss Pennsylvania, Sheena Monnin, awarding the Donald Trump enterprise $5 million in a dispute involving alleged defamatory remarks about the competition.

Monnin resigned as Miss Pennsylvania last June, complaining about the Miss Universe pageant: "It's obviously rigged so the girl they want can shine; they kept several beautiful girls out for that reason."  A THR, Esq. blog post noted that Monnin repeated criticisms of the pageant on the Today Show. When Monnin turned in her Miss Pennsylvania sash, she was quoted on Facebook as saying: "In good conscience I can no longer be affiliated in any way with an organization I consider to be fraudulent, lacking in morals, inconsistent, and in many ways trashy."

Something fronted by Celebrity Apprentice maven Donald Trump trashy? Monnin better hope all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed on her birth certificate.

Katz found that Monnin's statements were false and made with actual malice, in arriving at the $5 million award. He said she complained about the pageant being rigged before she had any factual basis for making such an allegation. Neither Monnin nor her attorney participated in the arbitration proceedings, from which Katz drew an adverse inference in his 19-page decision.

"TUOL" wonders how anyone who watches the swimsuit portion of the Miss Universe pageant can suspect anything about the contestants isn't real.

Intelligensia Litigation Smackdown: William Faulkner v. Woody Allen

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi is the setting for Faulkner Literary Rights LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics Inc. (Case No. 3:2012-cv-00100), a copyright infringement suit [17 U.S.C. sec. 501] brought by the estate of American novelist William Faulkner against the film studio behind Woody Allen's  Oscar-nominated blockbuster, Midnight in Paris.

The case centers around the following passage from Faulkner's Requiem for a Nun: "The past is never dead. It's not even past."  In the Allen film, the protagonist played by Owen Wilson paraphrases the quote in the following dialogue: "The past is not dead. Actually, it's not even past. You know who said that? Faulkner. And he was right. And I met him too. I ran into him as a dinner party."

To the plaintiff, the paraphrase of the quote without the defendant first obtaining a license from Faulkner's estate, is copyright infringement. To the defendant, the attributed 10-word passage satisfies the fair use exception to copyright law. To "TUOL," it's evidence that Midnight in Paris was overrated and not the least bit funny.

But Faulkner's heirs are in a litigious mood, as the Associated Press and the THR, Esq. Web site report that a second copyright infringement suit has been filed against a defense contractor and the Washington Post Co. involving an ad that uses a paragraph from a Faulkner essay that appeared in Harper's Magazine.

"TUOL" doesn't like to get involved, but note to the on-the-warpath Faulkner Estate: Macbeth's existential "Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow..." soliloquy includes the line: "sound and fury...", so Shakespeare had it first. Just sayin'.

9th Circ.: Monroe Heirs Can't Benefit from Calif. Privacy Law

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Although Hollywood sex symbol Marilyn Monroe died of a drug overdose at age 36 in 1962, her image and persona have continued to generate millions of dollars for her heirs. But following an adverse ruling last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe, LLC et al (Case No. 08-56471),  her beneficiaries may have crossed the River of No Return (1954).

According to accounts in The New York Times and THR, Esq., the appellate court ruled that the Delaware-formed Marilyn Monroe LLC cannot benefit from California's right of publicity statute [Cal. Civ. Code sec. 3344] that allowed her estate to reap the financial rewards of holding onto the rights of a celebrity's name, likeness and image. Monroe was born Norma Jean Mortenson in Los Angeles, but was a New York resident when her untimely death occurred, the Ninth Circuit concluded, and the Empire State's right of publicity statute [N.Y. CLS Civ. R. sec. 50(2000] does not recognize posthumous privacy rights.

Forbes Magazine's "Top Earning Dead Celebrities" macabre feature indicates Monroe generated $27 million in income in 2011, placing her behind only Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley in that category in which stars are not eager to be recognized, for obvious reasons. Her litigious Estate sued to prevent a San Francisco company from selling images of the actress without permission, perhaps following the imperative of one of the actress's films, Let's Make It Legal (1951), but ultimately, its tax planning strategy worked against it in the Ninth Circuit decision. As another of Monroe's films noted, Something's Got to Give (1961).