Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

<b>Decision of Note</b> MI Supreme Court Dismisses Claim over Backstage Taping

By Stan Soocher
March 29, 2011

The Supreme Court of Michigan dismissed an eavesdropping claim by city officials who were taped backstage while demanding that a video they considered improper for young audience members not be played during a Detroit concert that featured rappers Dr. Dre, Eminem and Snoop Dogg. Bowens v. ARY Inc., 282711. The suit was filed after the backstage conversation was included as a bonus track in the DVD release of the artists' Up in Smoke tour. The defendants included Aftermath Entertainment and Dr. Dre. The Wayne Circuit Court dismissed the complaint, which also alleged false light and fraud, among other things. But the Michigan Court of Appeals let the government officials proceed with their eavesdropping claim under MCL '750.539a et seq.

The state supreme court found, however, that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that the backstage conversation was “private” for purposes of the eavesdropping statute. The Michigan high court noted: “(1) the general locale of the meeting was
the backstage of the Joe Louis Arena during the hectic hours preceding a high-profile concert, where over 400 people, including national and local media, had backstage passes; (2) the concert-promoter defendants were not receptive to the public-official plaintiffs' requests and, by all accounts, the parties' relationship was antagonistic; (3) the room in which plaintiffs chose to converse served as defendants' operational headquarters with security personnel connected to defendants controlling the open doors; (4) there were at least nine identified people in the room, plus unidentified others who were free to come and go from the room, and listen to the conversation, as they pleased; (5) plaintiffs were aware that there were multiple camera crews in the vicinity, including a crew from MTV and a crew specifically hired by defendants to record backstage matters of interest; (6) and video evidence shows one person visibly filming in the room where the conversation took place while plaintiffs were present, thereby establishing that at least one cameraman was openly and obviously filming during the course of what plaintiffs have characterized as a 'private conversation.' Given these facts, plaintiffs could not have reasonably expected that their conversation with defendants would 'be free from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.'” The state supreme court added: “To the contrary, the conversation strikes us as one that was uniquely defined by both 'casual' and 'hostile' 'intrusion,' and 'surveillance.'”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office Image

A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.

Bit Parts Image

Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights

Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes Image

“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.

One Overlooked Element of Executive Safety: Data Privacy Image

Executives have access to some of the company's most sensitive information, and they're increasingly being targeted by hackers looking to steal company secrets or to perpetrate cybercrimes.