GI Sues Michael Moore

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by carpro, Jun 1, 2006.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/31/130505.shtml?s=et

    GI Sues Michael Moore for $85 Million

    EXCERPT

    A double-amputee veteran of the Iraq war is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming Moore used an old interview with the G.I. to make him appear anti-war in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."
    Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie. Damon lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope the soldier wins his lawsuit. No one should have his words distorted, especially in public, to mean something that he didn't say.
     
  3. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Sorry guys there is no way the guy will win. In order for Moore to even get the documentary distributed he would have been required to have signed release forms from every person shown on the screen. ALL standard entertainment industry release forms give the producers exclusive rights to use the footage however they see fit. Tough luck that the guy didn't read the entire form before he signed it. When he signed the release to be in the news story, he signed away his right to how the footage would be used in the future. Michael Mooore had to pay for the footage and the rights to it. Once he did he could use it how he saw fit. That's the business.
     
    #3 Filmproducer, Jun 1, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2006
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's rather doubtful that he signed a release form since both of his arms were blown off.

    And I don't think that signing a release form permits someone to lie about that person.
     
  5. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    C'mon even if the guy is an amputee someone has power of attorney to sign legal documents for him at his request. He would had to have one signed for the news story. That LEGAL document would transfer to Moore upon his approval to use the stock news footage. Moore did not lie about the man, he used footage of what the guy actually said. sorry you cannot sue for 85 million dollars because someone used what you said out of context. If that were the case there would be an over abundance of multi-million dollar lawsuits over political attack ads. :rolleyes: Sorry, but nothing will come out of this case.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    For someone like Moore, I doubt not having permission would slow him down at all.

    He has a long history of lies, misdirections, and half truths in his "documentaries".

    I believe the soldier will win if it gets to a jury.
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,072
    Likes Received:
    101
    I wouldn't be sure of that. No release is required for a news story.

    The soldier could have grounds to sue by arguing that the movie put him in a false light.

    The comparison to political attack ads is not apt; politicians are public figures, which raises significantly the bar to prosecuting a suit successfully.
     
  8. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    This man will not see a pretty penny from Miramax or Michael Moore. Documentaries are a nice, stable source of income for these companies, as long as Dateline, Primetime, 60 minutes, and the like continue to buy them. The GI made himself a public figure for agreeing to be interviewed for a news story. NBC has a right to use that footage, as they see fit, THEY have the exclusive rights to it, not those interviewed on air. The can do what they want with it, including granting non-exclusive rights to others, such as Moore, to use the footage. So, technically he did have the permission to use the footage. He is not required to seek permission from those interviewed. That's just the way it is. This is a glorified libel case, and it will be extremely hard to prove in a court of law. Michael Moore used the footage in a different context then it was originally intended, oh well. That's the nature of documentaries.
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regardless of all the legalese I hope this case goes to a jury. If nothing else it will result in public humiliation for Michael Moore so that people will be even less likely to trust any "documentary" he produces in the future.
     
  10. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you're putting too much faith in the common sense of the majority of people.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    I'll stick by my prediction.

    If it goes to a jury, Moore,the loser, loses.
     
  12. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just watched an interview with Peter Damon, and I think there are two points he brought out that might make a difference legally in his favor:

    1. That clip was not shot by Michael Moore and his crew. It was originally an interview done with Brian Williams about pain medications at Walter Reed. I am doubting that Peter signed any form of permission for Moore to use that clip in any manner he wishes since he is not even the person who did the interview.

    2. Even if Moore had done the interview and Peter had had hands with which to sign a consent form, he states that at the time, he was under major heavy medication for pain, and it is certainly not clear if he would have known what he was doing.

    I think based on this information, this is a dead bang winner and that slime ball Michael Moore is gonna have to pay up.

    Joseph Botwinick:thumbs:
     
  13. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    No one is denying that Moore did not actually conduct the interview. Please reread the posts...

     

Share This Page

Loading...