Judge tosses out privacy claim against Michael Moore over 'Sicko' segment

[Newsjock]

Source: Seattle Times

A federal magistrate judge in Tacoma has thrown out key claims in a lawsuit filed against controversial filmmaker Michael Moore and his Academy Award-nominated documentary "Sicko," the first use of a state law that bars lawsuits targeting conduct associated with free speech and the First Amendment.

Judge Karen Strombom last week granted Moore's motion to dismiss claims of invasion of privacy and "misappropriation of likeness" filed by Hoquiam resident Ken Aronson, ruling that Moore's use of 71 seconds of video belonging to Aronson was based on Moore's exploration of an issue of significant public concern — health care — and that its use was protected by the First Amendment.

A federal copyright-infringement claim survived, said Aronson's Tacoma lawyer, Thomas Vertetis.

He said Aronson is considering appealing Strombom's ruling, which included a mandated $10,000 fine against Aronson and ordered him to pay Moore's attorney fees.

Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012821051_slappruling06m.html

[jimnasium]

1. Here's some advise...

Never give away your footage...

If you get what you feel to be a bad edit - that's your problem.

[AzNick]

4. Read the article

It's not the man who gave the tape who sued, but a third party, another man who is featured in the video.

It has nothing to do with the healthcare issues but rather image and intellectual property rights.

The third party is shown in Sicko singing a song he wrote and Michael Moore did not have him sign a waiver or give him any credit for the song.

In this case, I would personally side with the 3rd party, were I on a jury panel, even if I like what Moore does and liked the message in Sicko.

[truedelphi]

5. If all is as you say, I would be inclined to agree with you.

Though I too am a fan of MM.

[wordpix]

10. thank you, +1 READING---a very important thing to do

[wordpix]

11. correction: 3rd party who sued was taping & not shown in video

Yes, MM should have paid the owner of the video for use of video

[Ian David]

2. IIRC, this ungrateful dirtbag was given a home by Homes for Heroes.

Which Michael Moore is a major contributor to.

[joeglow3]

6. So, if I benefit from a charity, I give up all rights?

If what I have read is true, I tend to agree with the plantiff. Sorry, but just because I benefit from a charity it does not mean I give up all legal rights to materials I produce and those who contributed can rip it off without giving me credit.

And the fact that you refer to him as an "ungrateful dirtbag" for not willingly giving up his rights says a LOT about you.

[Ian David]

7. He didn't give-up shit. He lost. Obviously, he was wrong. n/t

[joeglow3]

8. So, if he wins on appeal, will you be posting about how wrong you are?

I suppose you support Gore v. Bush, since Bush "won?"

[Ian David]

9. Even if he wins, he's still wrong.

His whole argument was, "Michael Moore used footage I let him shoot so he could make it look like The Bush Admin. didn't take good enough care of me."

And then he turns around and takes a free house provided to him by a charity funded by Michael Moore-- because The Bush Admin. wasn't taking good enough care of him.

Win or lose, he's still an ungrateful dirtbag who's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

[Proletariatprincess]

3. Good. This is a fair ruling.

Michael Moore was on Democracy Now! this morning for the whole hour with Amy Goodman. He didn't mention this issue, but he did talk about how his family has suffered as a result of his work.