Article 1

Art imitates life too closely, says Atlanta woman

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?individual_SQL=4%2F1%2F2008%4022335

Vickie Stewart, a member of the Red Hat Society (not to be confused with the Red Hat Club from the book) sued Haywood Smith because the hit book he wrote resembled her too closely. The character in the book is an alcoholic and promiscuous, which the does not claim to be true about her. However she her life following her husband's death is shockingly similar to the character in the book. Was it a mere coincidence? It could be argued that it with the number of people in the world, it's possible someone would have the same experiences as someone in a book. The problem for Smith, however, is that he has known Stewart personally for over 50 years. Smith lost in the district court, but when he went to appeals court he didn't bother to argue that his knowing Stewart did not influence the story. He did argue, however, that she was not the only influence for that particular character. Is that enough? I think not.

This reminded me a lot of many of the cases we have reviewed in the past regarding defamation and right of publicity. In fact, if this is not a case from the reading that I just happened to miss, I think it should be. It seems like an interesting and unique situation.

Article 2

Wild Kingdom

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=c53562c8-4c02-45db-9de1-12b91e4c2d8f

This article is interesting because it starts off with a quiz. The quiz demonstrates the cynicism about our negligence regarding caged wild animals. The first report mentioned in the article involves a woman that purchased two wild cheetahs to show off to visitors of the Florida Wildlife Conservation Center. The woman attempted to show off her prize to some guests when she was brutally attacked and almost killed. The second case involved a group of three kids that tormented a tiger at a zoo in San Francisco. Apparently they were throwing rocks at the tiger and using a laser pointer to irritate it, so the tiger jumped up the wall protecting his persecutors and injured two of the people and killed their friend. Upon the initial report the group filed a negligence and defamation charge against the Zoo for issuing some statements in the local newspaper saying that their friend who was killed was "provoking the tiger". It should also be said that the group was both high and drunk that day, and hours before their suit was filed, one of the members involved was arrested for theft. The tiger was shot and killed on the day of the incident.

This is a case of ridiculous proportions. Obviously these kids are stupid, but could they really hope to win a case to say they're not? They'd have to stay out of trouble to stand a chance and it's obvious that's not possible. This reminded me of the reading we did in regards to defamation and public humiliation.

Article 3

MLB hoping Supreme Court will hear fantasy sports case

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-02-29-fantasy-lawsuit_N.htm

Major League Baseball (MLBAM and MLBPA) is fighting against CDM Fantasy sports because CDM is using their players names and statistics without paying any sort of royalty fee. MLB is claiming their players should always get some sort of compensation whenever their names are used in fantasy baseball leagues - just like they are in endorsements. They believe this fits under the rights of publicity. So far the lower courts have all said that it is not the same as endorsement so it will not count as needing any royalty. MLB is hoping to be heard by the supreme court for a final ruling about if they should get royalties for this or not. Just like with the first article, this reminded me of McLeod's chapter on owning people. In this case, however, it's the celebrity image that is owned.