Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

7th Circuit Backs Use of Fan Footage in Joan Rivers Film

By Stan Soocher
January 31, 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a suit by a fan whose 16-second backstage discussion with the comedienne Joan Rivers was included in the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work. Bogie v. Rosenberg, 12-1923.

Ann Bogie had approached Rivers after a show at a Wisconsin casino to obtain Rivers' autograph on a book and to express support for Rivers over heckling from an audience member who was angered by a joke Rivers told about Helen Keller, who had been deaf.

On Bogie's invasion of privacy claim under Wis. Stat. '995.50(2)(a), the appeals court noted that she had spoken to Rivers “in the presence of several security personnel and a film crew. No reasonable person would expect privacy in that situation.” The appeals court added: “Courts have found that even performers themselves cannot count on a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own backstage areas.” Also, “the fact that Bogie was embarrassed to be filmed saying something she regrets having said and now deems offensive does not convert the filming itself into a highly offensive intrusion.”

The appeals court then considered Bogie's '995.50(2)(b) claim of misappropriation of her image without consent for “advertising purposes or for purposes of trade” by looking to New York precedents, because the Wisconsin statute is based on N.Y. Civil Rights Law '50. The appeals court concluded that “the documentary about Rivers is clearly subject to the newsworthiness exception for such claims. Additionally, we think it is clear as a matter of law that Bogie's image is merely incidental to the film, thereby barring her ' claim.”

[Editor's Note: Last month, the Ninth Circuit decided that the heirs of now-deceased Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel signed away their rights to the Man of Steel in a 2001 agreement with Warner Brothers. See the full story online, at www.ljnonline.com/alm?ent.]


Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a suit by a fan whose 16-second backstage discussion with the comedienne Joan Rivers was included in the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work. Bogie v. Rosenberg, 12-1923.

Ann Bogie had approached Rivers after a show at a Wisconsin casino to obtain Rivers' autograph on a book and to express support for Rivers over heckling from an audience member who was angered by a joke Rivers told about Helen Keller, who had been deaf.

On Bogie's invasion of privacy claim under Wis. Stat. '995.50(2)(a), the appeals court noted that she had spoken to Rivers “in the presence of several security personnel and a film crew. No reasonable person would expect privacy in that situation.” The appeals court added: “Courts have found that even performers themselves cannot count on a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own backstage areas.” Also, “the fact that Bogie was embarrassed to be filmed saying something she regrets having said and now deems offensive does not convert the filming itself into a highly offensive intrusion.”

The appeals court then considered Bogie's '995.50(2)(b) claim of misappropriation of her image without consent for “advertising purposes or for purposes of trade” by looking to New York precedents, because the Wisconsin statute is based on N.Y. Civil Rights Law '50. The appeals court concluded that “the documentary about Rivers is clearly subject to the newsworthiness exception for such claims. Additionally, we think it is clear as a matter of law that Bogie's image is merely incidental to the film, thereby barring her ' claim.”

[Editor's Note: Last month, the Ninth Circuit decided that the heirs of now-deceased Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel signed away their rights to the Man of Steel in a 2001 agreement with Warner Brothers. See the full story online, at www.ljnonline.com/alm?ent.]


Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.

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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.