Iraq veteran sues Moore over 9/11 film

[Goldmember]

Iraq veteran sues Moore over 9/11 film

By DENISE LAVOIE, AP Legal Affairs Writer

 

A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

 

Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week.

 

Damon, 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC's "Nightly News."

 

He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. Another reservist was killed in the explosion.

 

In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" — Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq — makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered.

 

In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he's "being crushed in a vise."

 

"But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it," he says. "And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

 

Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

 

Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military.

 

In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."

 

He said that, while at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center recovering from his wounds, he had surgery and physical therapy, learned to use prosthetics and live independently. He also said that Homes For Our Troops, a not-for-profit group, built him a house with handicapped accessibility.

 

"The work creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication as a wounded serviceman who was left behind when Plaintiff was not left behind but supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the President, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," Damon says in his lawsuit.

 

Moore did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday. A message was left for Moore at a personal number in New York and with HarperCollins, publisher of Moore's 2002 book, "Stupid White Men...And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!"

 

A spokesman for Miramax Film Corp., also named as a defendant, did not immediately return a call.

 

Damon did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

 

"It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that," Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, said.

 

Damon is seeking $75 million in damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation. His wife is suing for an additional $10 million in damages because of the mental distress caused to her husband, Lynch said.

 

el linko

[santo=dorf]

$85 million.

[EvilMonkey]

Good for Damon. All that fat bastard (moore) did was complain that people were profitting off the war, when he himself profitted off it more than anyone. He stole clips, stole music, didn't get clearances and didn't get permissions to use what he did, he should pay.

[Cknolls]

They should up-armor a Humvee with his fat ass!!!!!

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm pretty sure all Moore had to do was get permission from NBC for use of the footage. And as long as the clip itself is not doctored I think he'll be in the clear.

[bmags]

should be titled "Moore gets 'moore' publicity for Fahrenheit 9/11"

[Rex Kickass]

I think it's bulls*** that you have to get clearance to use anything broadcast publicly to begin with.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think it's bulls*** that you have to get clearance to use anything broadcast publicly to begin with.

I disagree for several reasons. First and foremost, we are talking about the livelyhood and stock-in-trade of broadcast companies. They spend large amounts of money putting programming together, and they need to be assured that there are protections against content vultures who would otherwise take and air large amounts of content second-hand at little cost to them.

 

Making the secondeary market content prospectors get authorization to air content produced by the broadcast networks ensures that they know where and how and how much of their content will be used, and allows the networks to stipulate licensing terms, including whatever fees the parties agree to.

[Steff]

Good for Damon. All that fat bastard (moore) did was complain that people were profitting off the war, when he himself profitted off it more than anyone. IFHe stole clips, stole music, didn't get clearances and didn't get permissions to use what he did, he should pay.

 

But I'm sure he did, or he wouldn't have gotten a distributor, so MM will be just fine.

 

I'm pretty sure all Moore had to do was get permission from NBC for use of the footage. And as long as the clip itself is not doctored I think he'll be in the clear.

 

 

 

^

[Texsox]

Overall, and not specific to this, but related. It would only seem fair that permission would have to be sought from individuals for derivative works. I know if my likeness or quotes were being used in something I'd be pissed if I wasn't asked. Plus ths blurs news and for profit works.

 

Of course if all he really wants is his name cleared and his reputation back, he has done that. I didn't know him before, but now I do. So he smeared himself and clarfied at the same time. But that money would probably help also.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Overall, and not specific to this, but related. It would only seem fair that permission would have to be sought from individuals for derivative works. I know if my likeness or quotes were being used in something I'd be pissed if I wasn't asked. Plus ths blurs news and for profit works.

 

I think it pretty much depends on the original release you sign, and all the fine print contained therein. If you have read any of the boilerplate language on those you know you pretty much agree to give up control of the use of your likeness in a variety of media uses beyond the original broadcast. This includes use as marketing materials for the broadcaster or its parent company or its affiliates, and it also usually includes general nondescriptive derivative uses that are consistent with the manner in which thir archive material is normally used.

 

There is big money in archival and B-roll newsreel footage leasing. And it is getting bigger and bigger with all the Internet demand for broadcast content and also the increasing ease with which regular folks can get into the documentary business with minimal hardware and software expenditures.

 

Most likely, Michael Moore's lawyers will produce evidence of the lease agreement with NBC and will refer Sgt. Damon to the release he signed with NBC.

 

As far as using newsreel material in a way that the subject deems unflattering or otherwise objectionable, if it was that easy to sue over it then Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert would be in the poor house. They are not. They and the companies they work for are meticulous in the way they secure usage rights to avoid such complications.

[Texsox]

Gee, Jim, you don't think any of this is to make Moore look even worse, do you?

 

There may be an obvious parody vs. serious documentary angle to be played, but I doubt it would fly. I can understand the man's point of view and the desire to clarify his position. I can eve better understand his desire to pick up a few dollars in the process. I am certain he is going to need a lot of help in trying to live somethng close to a normal life with his disabilities.

[Steff]

Frivolous. The end.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I am certain he is going to need a lot of help in trying to live somethng close to a normal life with his disabilities.[/color]

[/color]

I agree with that. I also agree that his segment in F911 was very powerful and gut-wrenching and, imo, did not portray him unfavorably or as whining about his plight or his country's decisions regarding the war.

 

I empathized very deeply with him, and with many of the soldiers depicted in the film.

 

I only know Sgt. Damon from F9-11, and now from this lawsuit. There are thousands of similar stories I do not know about - in large part because the MSM has a gag order not to show any if the 'ickiness' if the war because people might get upset and question our continued presence. I don't know, but I wonder if the wider exposure of Damon and his story through 9-11 had anything to do with the nnprofit vet group picking up the ball and building him the house.

[Balta1701]

Good for Damon. All that fat bastard (moore) did was complain that people were profitting off the war, when he himself profitted off it more than anyone. He stole clips, stole music, didn't get clearances and didn't get permissions to use what he did, he should pay.

One other note...something like 60% of the profits from that film were supposed to be donated to a charity of Disney's choosing. The other 40% was slated to go to the Weinsteins/Miramax. Presumably Moore did all right and got a slice of the Miramax cut, but he didn't rake in the full $100 million Gross.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Good for Damon. All that fat bastard (moore) did was complain that people were profitting off the war, when he himself profitted off it more than anyone. He stole clips, stole music, didn't get clearances and didn't get permissions to use what he did, he should pay.

I didn't take time to question this when I read it earlier, but specifically WHAT music did he steal for the film? He very much wanted to use the Who's Won't Get Fooled Again as the closing music after the GWB "Fool me once. . . " clip, but Townsend refused to give him the rights to us it so he used Neil's Rockin in the Free World there instead. I doubt Moore used that song in a way Neil disliked, or he wouldn't have let him direct the new video for the song that came out a couple years back.

 

My sincere question, Evil – what music did Moore steal for the film, and according to who?

 

Thanks

[Gregory Pratt]

I don't think Moore is liable here for anything, but I do think that he's a dishonest fat bastard and I did object to his use of this footage when the first objections were sounded about this long ago.

[EvilMonkey]

I didn't take time to question this when I read it earlier, but specifically WHAT music did he steal for the film? He very much wanted to use the Who's Won't Get Fooled Again as the closing music after the GWB "Fool me once. . . " clip, but Townsend refused to give him the rights to us it so he used Neil's Rockin in the Free World there instead. I doubt Moore used that song in a way Neil disliked, or he wouldn't have let him direct the new video for the song that came out a couple years back.

 

My sincere question, Evil – what music did Moore steal for the film, and according to who?

 

Thanks

This is what I was talking about, and while it isn't really 'music', the title of it is what stayed in my head. He still used it without permission, and didn't pay for it.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/27/...l?from=storyrhs

[Texsox]

This is what I was talking about, and while it isn't really 'music', the title of it is what stayed in my head. He still used it without permission, and didn't pay for it.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/27/...l?from=storyrhs

 

Similar to Lord of the Flies, Anal Attraction, Forrest Hump . . . of all the sins of the world, I can't get too worked up over this. I can't believe our society can't have two works with Fahrenheit in the title.

[EvilMonkey]

Similar to Lord of the Flies, Anal Attraction, Forrest Hump . . . of all the sins of the world, I can't get too worked up over this. I can't believe our society can't have two works with Fahrenheit in the title.

Tex, that link had nothing to do with the title. It had to do with Moore taking pieces from the others guys work and basiclly putting them in his piece without asking, or paying. As for the name, it is well known that Bradbury didn't like it, but since it can be considered a parody, it is fair game.

Edited June 2, 2006 by EvilMonkey

[EvilMonkey]

One other note...something like 60% of the profits from that film were supposed to be donated to a charity of Disney's choosing. The other 40% was slated to go to the Weinsteins/Miramax. Presumably Moore did all right and got a slice of the Miramax cut, but he didn't rake in the full $100 million Gross.

Moore did quite well.

...when Miramax made the deal for Fahrenheit 9/11, it allowed Moore a generous profit participation—which turned out to be 27 percent of the film's net receipts. Disney, in honoring this deal, paid Moore a stunning $21 million. Moore never disclosed the amount of his profit participation. When asked about it, the proletarian Moore joked to reporters on a conference call, "I don't read the contracts."

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2117923/

 

Whole story here, where gross gate of over $200 million turned into only a $78 million profit. With that kind of creative accounting maybe Enron should have hired a few Hollywood accountants.

[Texsox]

Tex, that link had nothing to do with the title. It had to do with Moore taking pieces from the others guys work and basiclly putting them in his piece without asking, or paying. As for the name, it is well known that Bradbury didn't like it, but since it can be considered a parody, it is fair game.

 

 

Are we reading the same link? Moore got access, where does it say he didn't pay for it? This is probably similar to Michael Jackson having the rights to Beatles songs and licensing them for commercials. IIRC Paul was pissed, but it was legal.

[YASNY]

I knew you guys would jump to this douchebag's (Moore) defense.

[Steff]

Even douchebags don't deserve to get sued for stupid bulls***.

[Texsox]

I knew you guys would jump to this douchebag's (Moore) defense.

 

And of course the only thing you look at is Moore's politics. We have a system in this country that when you are wronged you can legally seek remedies. People buy and sell other people's intellectual property all the time. That is the law in America and I respect that. Even scumbags are protected. If George Gittoes wanted complete control over his documentary, he should have paid for it himself and owned the whole thing. But he didn't and the company that took the risk on a documentary about soldiers singing songs, allowed it to be used. And they proably even made a few dollars more than from the hippies that went to art houses to watch it the first time.

 

Damon could have refused to appear, but signed a release and it gave ABC the rights to the interview. Lesson to all, don't appear on TV and you won't have that problem. We'll see how his case pans out. That's why we have a legal system.