Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decided that the First Amendment barred a negligence claim by a former police officer who sued over how he was depicted in the documentary mini-series Making a Murderer. But the district court ruled that the plaintiff's defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were properly pleaded. Colborn v. Netflix Inc., 19-cv-0484. Former officer Andrew Colborn claims he was falsely depicted in the series as having framed a murder suspect. In granting Netflix's motion to dismiss Colborn's negligence claim, District Judge Brett H. Ludwig explained: "The fundamental point in the Supreme Court's New York Times v. Sullivan[, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),] ruling is that a public official plaintiff bears a high burden in pursuing tort claims related to the publication of matters that are of public concern. To pursue such a claim, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. … This requirement precludes any state law liability based on mere negligence." But District Judge Ludwig went on to find: "Contrary to Netflix's assertions, the Supreme Court has never held that the First Amendment completely bars public officials' claims for the intentional infliction of emotional distress." And in allowing Colborn's defamation claim to proceed, the district judge noted: "Netflix portrays both Making a Murderer and Making a Murderer 2 as part of the 'venerable American tradition' of 'true crime' reporting and suggests this label alone renders defendants immune from defamation claims. … Neither the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit has ever suggested a speaker enjoys unconditional First Amendment immunity for making defamatory statements simply because the statements concern legal proceedings."
*****
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.