Disabled Iraq Vet Suing Over 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

by Mark5019 May 31, 2006 1:56PM PDT

BOSTON -- A veteran who lost both arms in the Iraq war is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million.

Sgt. Peter Damon alleges that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

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

i hope he wins this suit
moore deserves to go broke but doubt he will

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/9302559/detail.html

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -

Are they saying that Michael Moore has fabricated things....

by EdH May 31, 2006 10:05PM PDT

or twisted the truth in some way in his film? I am SHOCKED!

- Collapse -

i know ed

by Mark5019 May 31, 2006 10:16PM PDT

i was so overwhelmed i was afraid to post it here because of the reallity of his supporters

- Collapse -

And some seemingly rational ...

by Evie May 31, 2006 10:53PM PDT

... intelligent adults fell for it nonetheless

Evie

- Collapse -

(NT) (NT) rational lol lol

by Mark5019 May 31, 2006 11:00PM PDT

- Collapse -

Not once, but TWICE!

by MarkatNite Jun 1, 2006 1:13PM PDT

After Bowling for Columbine, I don't understand how anyone could expect Fahrenheit 9/11 to not have an agenda.

Not that there's anything wrong with a film having an agenda. But, as the saying goes: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...

Mark

- Collapse -

He's got grounds, Mark...

by J. Vega Jun 1, 2006 2:23AM PDT

Mark, to get damages he needs to show malice. That shouldn't be a problem. In the case of libel many things can demonstrate malice. In this case one of those things stands out to me - "A preconceived story line", which is defined as "Evidence that a someone conceived a story line in advance of an investigation and then consciously set out to make the evidence conform to the preconceived story". It is usually very powerful evidence of actual malice.

- Collapse -

j man i beleave

by Mark5019 Jun 1, 2006 3:56AM PDT

moore new was false.
not a lawyer here just my gut feeling

- Collapse -

I have yet to see the movie myself

by grimgraphix Jun 1, 2006 3:01AM PDT

...I know... a so called ''liberal'' like me hasn't seen Fahrenheit blah blah blah? Shocking! But I have better uses for my money ... so I can't comment about the content nor how Damon may feel he was portrayed.

But, I always have to wonder about this and similar law suits brought against authors, song writers, and film makers and others long after the content in question has come out. I have no doubt Sgt. Damon has been busy dealing with his wounds but the movie came out in 2004. I would be interested in seeing a timeline of when the NBC interview was done, when the movie was first shown, when Damon first knew about or watched the movie, and when he was wounded (has he been dealing with his wounds all this time). I would also be interested in seeing the original interview versus how it was edited for the film.

As for "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."... how does one prove this to the extent of $85 million dollars? Subpoena all the people who made fun of you?

Also, from my limited knowledge of copyright law... if Damon signed a blanket release for the interview then all Moore needed was permission from NBC to reuse the footage. Since NBC hasn't sued Moore I have to assume he got the permission.

Again... I'm not questioning Sgt. Damon per se... I just always question anyone this late to the party who wants to sue for big bucks.

grim

- Collapse -

(NT) (NT) I have some of the same questions.

by Dan McC Jun 1, 2006 3:07AM PDT

- Collapse -

Release with a news interview...

by J. Vega Jun 1, 2006 9:45AM PDT

I have done many news interviews with a TV network. I never had someone sign a release. In fact, we didn't even carry them in the field. News shows are copyrighted, and sometimes a network gives another party permission to use a set amount of time from one. But this permission is not automatic permission to change the content at will,like using selective editing to change the appearance of the basic facts or impressions.
Oh, before someone screams "fair use", when the use is for a commercial use there is a problem with saying fair use.
On the amount of damages in a libel case, if they can show malice or fraud punitive damages may be given. The amount of the award is up to the jury (judge in a case not before a jury).

- Collapse -

i think it's a frivolous law suit

by Rick S Jun 1, 2006 10:20AM PDT

the interview was done with the network and they own it. If they gave or made a deal for the rights so be it.

Buddy doesn't own the interview.

the whole malice angle I haven't processed that yet.

- Collapse -

It's not a matter of ownership...

by J. Vega Jun 1, 2006 1:19PM PDT

It's not a matter of ownership, it's a matter of alteration. It's like getting permission to use a speech by someone, clipping out words and phrases, and editing the selected parts into a result that makes the person appear to have said something that he didn't. Ownership or permission to use does not grant the right to do anything that comes to mind.
Not a news situation, but remember the hoo-raw when people started colorizing black and white movies? The lawsuits flew.

Disabled Iraq Vet Suing Over 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info