Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
July 01, 2020

Right of Publicity Laws Don't Pierce CDA Immunity Shield

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided that state right of publicity claims should be dismissed under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. §230. Hepp v. Facebook Inc., 19-4034. Philadelphia TV news personality Karen Hepp had brought common law and statutory right of publicity claims, alleging that "without her consent, a photograph of her taken by a security camera in a convenience store in New York City was being used in online advertisements for erectile dysfunction and dating websites." Section 230 states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." But the CDA provides an exception from this online immunity for claims based on "any law pertaining to intellectual property." District Judge John Milton Younge found the intellectual property laws immunity exception applied to federal, not to state, laws, by noting: "State laws that could arguably be construed as implicating 'intellectual property' vary and are not uniform in their purposes and policy goals. Conditioning CDA immunity on the diverse potentially applicable state laws would have a negative effect on the development of the internet, and, therefore, would run contrary to the purpose and intent of the CDA."

*****

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Wolf of Wall Street Defamation Suit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a defamation action brought against production and distribution defendants over the movie The Wolf of Wall Street. Greene v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 19-135. The film, starring Leonard DiCaprio and directed by Martin Scorsese, was based on a memoir by Jordan Belfort, co-founder of the discredited securities firm Stratton Oakmont. Plaintiff Andrew Greene — who worked at Stratton Oakmont as general counsel and corporate finance head, and was a key, unflattering character in Belfort's book — alleged he was defamed in the movie by being "Nicky Koskoff," who the defendants argued was a composite character of several Stratton Oakmont employees. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment for the defendants by finding they "did not act with knowledge or reckless disregard for whether Koskoff was 'of and concerning' Plaintiff, and thus, that they did not act with actual malice." In its affirmance, the Second Circuit noted of the vetting process for the film: "[D]efendants' representatives spoke to a number of people, including Belfort, and read the Book and numerous news accounts of the events depicted in the Film. They spoke to screenwriter Terence Winter, who advised that he had reduced 'the number of characters [featured in the Book] by creating various composite characters who did not correspond to any single human being." The appeal court further found: "[N]o reasonable viewer of the Film would believe that defendants intended the Koskoff character to be a depiction of Greene. The most obvious point is that there is no character named Andrew Greene … in the Film. Moreover, the record shows that defendants knew that the Koskoff character was a fictitious character who was a composite of three different people depicted in the Book. For example, in the Film the Koskoff character worked as a broker at Stratton who works on the trading floor. Greene, on the other hand, was the head of the Corporate Finance Department who did not work on the trading floor." The Second Circuit then pointed to the film's "disclaimer making clear that characters in the Film are fictionalized."

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
New York's Latest Cybersecurity Commitment Image

On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.

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

The Bankruptcy Hotline Image

Recent cases of importance to your practice.

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.