GI Sues Michael Moore

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. Sorry, but nothing will come out of this case.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I think you're putting too much faith in the common sense of the majority of people.

 

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:

 

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