In rememberance of Talon Manning (Tanner Hall)
- Thread starter PadDON
- Start date
JD, you're a lawyer, really? They never said what they were saying was true, they didn't even use his real name, im sure they had rights to use the footage (a whole different fiasco). I dunno, i just finished a mass comm law class and from what i learned, tanner would have no basis for any lawsuit.
Panda_with_Guns
Active member
*talon but omfg that was lawls. i wonder what tanner thinks of this...
Yes, really. But not an IP lawyer and not a defamation specialist, and since you just finished a 3 credit undergrad comm law class in assumedly an arts program at UMass, I'll defer to your no doubt staggering expertise.
I don't know who has the rights to that footage but I would expect the copyright still belongs to Ostness et al. The hilarious part of your post is "well they never said that what they were saying was true". I'm just gonna put a front page article in the New York Times calling you a terrorist, but hey, it's okay, I never said that any of it was true. Seriously? Even funnier that the thing is called "truTV".
There are a number of other statutory possibilities depending on the appropriate jurisdiction in re: the knowing publication of false statements. You could stretch that any number of ways, a couple of creative hours with some IP litigators and I have no doubt you'd yield a whiteboard full of causes of action.
I don't know who has the rights to that footage but I would expect the copyright still belongs to Ostness et al. The hilarious part of your post is "well they never said that what they were saying was true". I'm just gonna put a front page article in the New York Times calling you a terrorist, but hey, it's okay, I never said that any of it was true. Seriously? Even funnier that the thing is called "truTV".
There are a number of other statutory possibilities depending on the appropriate jurisdiction in re: the knowing publication of false statements. You could stretch that any number of ways, a couple of creative hours with some IP litigators and I have no doubt you'd yield a whiteboard full of causes of action.
I mean if nothing else, the filmmaker's moral right to have the integrity of his work protected - which can't be alienated (again, didn't take no fancy comm law class at Mass, but pretty sure this is the case) - is potential grounds for an injunction requiring the removal of the footage and a public retraction by the same medium.
Panda_with_Guns
Active member
also he could get them for slander for calling him a gamer when he is a pro skier
I wasn't trying to say i knew more than you, but i did learn simple concepts about defamation and its was one of the main things we talked about throughout the course. and it was 4 credits!! lol
I think if you look into TruTV and into their contracts and such with whatever footage they used, im sure there is something there that says nothing of what they say is presumably true. Like i said, im sure the rights for the footage had been worked out before they aired that episode. What we don't know is what the limits were for this footage and what they were allow to stay. Are far as TruTV new, what they were saying was true and they were just misinformed. There are alot of holes in this argument due to lack of information, i think even if tanner had some small basis to sue, it probably wouldn't be worth his time and money. But, im still sticking to my previous statement, i dont think he has any basis to sue.
Again, this is my uneducated opinion, based on a course i took recently, im no expert. If someone can come in and show me why tanner could sue, i would be completely open to that, i find law fascinating, especially 1st amendment law and i would love to learn more about it.
I think if you look into TruTV and into their contracts and such with whatever footage they used, im sure there is something there that says nothing of what they say is presumably true. Like i said, im sure the rights for the footage had been worked out before they aired that episode. What we don't know is what the limits were for this footage and what they were allow to stay. Are far as TruTV new, what they were saying was true and they were just misinformed. There are alot of holes in this argument due to lack of information, i think even if tanner had some small basis to sue, it probably wouldn't be worth his time and money. But, im still sticking to my previous statement, i dont think he has any basis to sue.
Again, this is my uneducated opinion, based on a course i took recently, im no expert. If someone can come in and show me why tanner could sue, i would be completely open to that, i find law fascinating, especially 1st amendment law and i would love to learn more about it.
Well there are a number of things. First, defamation where you are is presumably different than here. I believe there is some absolute malice requirement or something equally wacky down there that doesn't exist here thanks to Hill v. Scientology. The USA is generally pretty bad for copyright protection.
Second, there are interesting jurisdictional issues because that was played not only on TV which is accessible in multiple countries but also the internet. There is emerging OECD model law on this kind of stuff but I understand it's underdeveloped for obvious reasons and I'm not an IP lawyer so I don't know, to use a technical term, jack shit about it. Essentially, though, even if his case was weak under US law, that's not to say he couldn't sue in Canada, where I and thousands of others saw it, or France under the civil law of that country, etc. In Canada and many other places, I am pretty confident a moral rights claim has some legs, if nothing else.
One thing you have to understand about boilerplate is that a large amount of it means nothing. Example, go park in an underground parking lot and the ticked you put on your dash will have a bunch of liability waivers printed on it. You'd read it and think "shit, if something happens I'm screwed", but exactly none of that is legal. If you sign a commercial lease for retail space, if you actually read the lease terms it's one of the most ridiculous types of contracts you can imagine, they have stuff in some of those that provides that the lessor revokes all rights to not get physically assaulted (not kidding, have seen this). Then there's a provision at the end that makes all illegal provisions severable - i.e., if something in here ain't cool, just ignore it. It's essentially white noise. That stuff is everywhere. What TruTV puts in the fine print somewhere on the website or at the end of their credits to attempt to cover its own ass does not necessarily make any difference whatsoever.
Being "misinformed" and "wilfully blind to the truth" are very different things; arguably a failure to engage in at least some due diligence to ensure that any story they publish is true is negligent in and of itself but I am pretty positive that "well someone told me this shit so I published it on the assumption that they weren't full of crap" is not a particularly effective defense to defamation - or anything else for that matter.
This is all nerd talk anyway, this shit happened in 2009 so it'd all be statute barred now in any case. Pretty much BS though, I hope he did talk to someone about it. Like I say, this isn't my area of practice, but if someone pitched this shit to me now I'd run it by one of the IP people for sure.
Second, there are interesting jurisdictional issues because that was played not only on TV which is accessible in multiple countries but also the internet. There is emerging OECD model law on this kind of stuff but I understand it's underdeveloped for obvious reasons and I'm not an IP lawyer so I don't know, to use a technical term, jack shit about it. Essentially, though, even if his case was weak under US law, that's not to say he couldn't sue in Canada, where I and thousands of others saw it, or France under the civil law of that country, etc. In Canada and many other places, I am pretty confident a moral rights claim has some legs, if nothing else.
One thing you have to understand about boilerplate is that a large amount of it means nothing. Example, go park in an underground parking lot and the ticked you put on your dash will have a bunch of liability waivers printed on it. You'd read it and think "shit, if something happens I'm screwed", but exactly none of that is legal. If you sign a commercial lease for retail space, if you actually read the lease terms it's one of the most ridiculous types of contracts you can imagine, they have stuff in some of those that provides that the lessor revokes all rights to not get physically assaulted (not kidding, have seen this). Then there's a provision at the end that makes all illegal provisions severable - i.e., if something in here ain't cool, just ignore it. It's essentially white noise. That stuff is everywhere. What TruTV puts in the fine print somewhere on the website or at the end of their credits to attempt to cover its own ass does not necessarily make any difference whatsoever.
Being "misinformed" and "wilfully blind to the truth" are very different things; arguably a failure to engage in at least some due diligence to ensure that any story they publish is true is negligent in and of itself but I am pretty positive that "well someone told me this shit so I published it on the assumption that they weren't full of crap" is not a particularly effective defense to defamation - or anything else for that matter.
This is all nerd talk anyway, this shit happened in 2009 so it'd all be statute barred now in any case. Pretty much BS though, I hope he did talk to someone about it. Like I say, this isn't my area of practice, but if someone pitched this shit to me now I'd run it by one of the IP people for sure.
The different countries stuff is interesting... thanks for the reply. Like i said, ive taken one course. law is a fucking hard topic and i considering continuing my schooling in law but i dunno if i could handle it.
I would love to debate more but im afraid im not knowledgable enough on the topic. Im sure there is someone out there who could make a case, but would it be worth it? How much could tanner even collect? i feel like it would be a waste of time and money.
I would love to debate more but im afraid im not knowledgable enough on the topic. Im sure there is someone out there who could make a case, but would it be worth it? How much could tanner even collect? i feel like it would be a waste of time and money.
Childstar.
Active member
I lost.
COCAINEandCAVIAR
Member
probably the best thing ive seen in NGS aside from that chemicals in the butt thread
7-3instacall
Member
Have not read the whole thread, but its kinda funny that Talon, in french, is heel/ankle
Wallisch_pl
Active member
exactly
RubberSoul
Active member
i do wonder what ended up happening, if anything. the thread where the girl came to the site was deleted apparently, as was tanner's reply about the whole thing in that older thread
