AP: Iraq veteran sues filmmaker over portrayal in "Fahrenheit 9/11

[Mr_Spock]

By Denise Lavoie, AP Legal Affairs Writer | May 31, 2006

BOSTON --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."

...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/31/iraq_veteran_sues_filmmaker_over_portrayal_in_fahrenheit_911/




I know this is an idiotic story, but I thought I'd post it here anyway...

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Poor kid, lost both his arms, and now some stupid lawyer is taking away

his self-respect. Very sad, indeed.

[idgiehkt]

27. kills me he's suing Moore and not Bush.

just kills me.

Arms aren't work 40 mil each?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

36. I wonder who's paying him to sue Moore

Swift Boat Liars, maybe?

[BrklynLiberal]

37. Someone of that ilk, no doubt.

[hollowdweller]

46. I wondered who was financing him too. Sounds like a RW tactic

[saigon68]

76. It's the Sleeze Boat Veterans Again, The Dumb Fuck should sue Bush

He's the asshole who caused his arms to be blown off

Or maybe Cheney He's made so much money he can pay the idiot off.

[LeftNYC]

2. Did he just see the movie? nt

[struggle4progress]

33. He saw it Summer 04:

http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/15/news/news/news02.txt

[Charlie Brown]

3. If this was a clip from NBC News

did Moore require Damon's permission to use it?

[greyl]

8. NBC policy...

"A spokeswoman at NBC News explained the company's policy of making news footage available for use in the public domain.

``As all news organizations do, NBC News does license footage that has already aired on NBC programs. As a general rule, most news organizations, including NBC News, do not obtain releases from people who appear on our news programs. When we do license footage - as in this instance - NBC includes a provision that it is the responsibility of the licensee, not NBC, to obtain all required consents and releases necessary to use the footage,'' the spokeswoman said in an e-mail.

Damon said Moore never contacted him for such a release.

[Charlie Brown]

11. sounds legally hazy

If Damon did not sign a release with NBC, they could be at fault for licensing the material without his consent. On the other hand, if Moore was made aware his responsibilities to get consent on the clip, this guy could have a case. But why did he wait two years to file suit?

And if the clip was nationally broadcast, it could be covered under "fair use."

[jayfish]

12. Sounds Like Fair Use To Me.

But hey, fair use has had it's back against the wall for a while now.

Jay

[1932]

49. Being nationally broadcast isn't the trigger for "fair use."

That the clip is newsworthy, however, is a trigger.

You can't use copyright law to stifle discussions about matters worthy of discussion.

Separate from copyright, however, is the issue of whether he was misrepresented. Here's a good article about false light claims: http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/26-4/lib-falselig.html.

[rocktivity]

67. DING DING DING! Charlie Brown, you're our grand prize winner!

If Damon did not sign a release with NBC, they could be at fault for licensing the material without his consent.

THAT is what I don't understand about this case--how can a network profit from selling its news footage (never mind using it on the air), WITHOUT consent? According to post #8, "As all news organizations do, NBC News does license footage that has already aired on NBC programs. As a general rule, most news organizations, including NBC News, do not obtain releases from people who appear on our news programs." Did NBC explain that they could do this to Damon, verbally or in writing, and did he agree? If Damon did not sign a release with NBC, they HAVE to be named as co-defendants in this suit, otherwise it has no legal credibility at all.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Baclava]

53. So NBC state's it never gave permission for it's use?

There's some CYA.

[11cents]

4. Idiotic as a lawsuit, yes.

His complaint is essentially is that the juxtaposition of his clip with others conveys an editorial point that he doesn't agree with. He's not saying that his clip was distorted; he just doesn't like the way it was used. He doesn't have a case. But ....

...I think he does have reason to feel aggrieved. This kind of thing exhibits the essential laziness of Moore's mix-and-match collage technique, the way it scores easy points without making actual arguments, and the way it can turn people like this guy into raw materials. I know Moore is a hero to many here, and Fahrenheit 911 was a nice political high, but there's an underlying sloppiness and disrespect there.

[Canuckistanian]

29. Moore freely admits that F/911 is propaganda

But his argument is that we've been hearing propaganda almost non-stop since well before 9/11.

He agrees it's slanted, biased and basically says "So what?"

His point is that it's almost a parody of media techniques that clearly cheerleaded for the other side.

And sloppiness and disrespect have NEVER been used in the corporate media, have they? :sarcasm:

[greyl]

5. "...a documentary Hitler would have made"

"Just the whole thought of being in this piece of propaganda. It's like a documentary Hitler would have made." Peter Damon, August 2004.
http://content.gannettonline.com/gns/iraq/20040809-50187.shtml

[mortlefaucheur]

40. That looks like grounds for a countersuit. eom

[Lautremont]

6. "Fair use" will cover this neatly, I think. (nt)

[zreosumgame]

10. Just an opening salvo

Count on the nut-jobs claiming Chesea is Michael Moore's lovechild with hillary or some other line of crap.

[Demit]

7. I wonder if he signed a release for the original interview.

And how it was worded. And he waits two years to complain? Sounds like he's doing a Zinsmeister--says nothing at the time, then two years later comes out in high dudgeon.

[Deja Q]

9. Depends on how/if Moore paid for those clips.

This guy there may have no case at all and is just being petty, greedy, and sniping at the wrong person for his malaise.

B+ for effort, certainly. But he may have signed away his rights when doing his tv interview - he should have checked the fine print. Indeed, if amazon.com tells consumers that any reviews they write

Mind you, Moore could have cheated too. And he ought to know better.

My verdict's out. FWIW.

[IndianaGreen]

14. If those clips were broadcast, this guy doesn't have a case!

Is this man stupid or what? It took him 3 years to feel that he was injured by the documentary? Bullshit!

[still_one]

18. yes, he is a frickn' idiot

what does he believe he lost his limbs for?

just like Viet Nam, 60000 Americans wasted there lives FOR NOTHING, and this jerk lost his limbs for NOTHING

maybe someone should tell him that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11

[jberryhill]

22. He may have had other priorities

...which seems likely.

[0rganism]

71. "signed away his rights" -- kind of a weird phrase, in this context

I know you're not being literal, but there's just something ironic and macabre about the whole thing, your metaphor included -- I doubt the guy was signing anything at the time, given his particular injury...

[leesa]

13. So his mental distress is caused by a few seconds of film and not by his

missing arms lost in an illegal war...uh huh.

[brentspeak]

15. Michael Moore often plays fast-and-loose with the facts

That's why I don't care much for his films.

[IndianaGreen]

16. What is more credible, Moore's Farenheit 911 or...

Bush reading My Pet Goat?

[stepnw1f]

19. Gee... Let Me Think About That

I don't know... I mean Brentspeak says Michael Moore can't be trusted... :eyes:

His/her attitude seems to be consistent with a lot of issues. Always a "right" leaning slant.....

[Terran1212]

21. He's more into comedic attacks than serious politicking

But still a treasure of a filmmaker and activist.

[TankLV]

23. List them. I dare you to find any.

The entire film was accurate with the facts.

Either put up or shut up.

[Barrett808]

30. Yes, I think Fahrenheit 9/11 is pretty unimpeachable on the facts

I had independently run across most of his material from other credible sources.

Bowling for Columbine may be another story. Thoughts?

[cantstandbush]

39. Evidence, please. Does Michael lie? Does he make up shit?

Fast and loose with the truth as in Bush's reasons for invading Iraq: WMDs, regime change, to spread democracy, to fight them over there so we don't have to fight "them" here, Iraq-Al-qaeda involvement, Iraq as imminent danger to us. Which one of these truths is Michael Moore's F-911 like?

[mortlefaucheur]

41. >:)

:rofl:

[silvermachine]

52. Or seemingly anything else progressive...

n/t

[brentspeak]

57. If "progressive" means "propaganda"

then I'm definitely not "progressive". Moore himself admits that "F-9/11" is propaganda.

But in any case, I identify myself more as a "Democrat" than the nebulous word "progressive".

A summary of my views:

I am AGAINST:

1) NAFTA, CAFTA, and all the other free-trade laws that have decimated our manufacturing base.

2) Outsourcing of American jobs

3) The Iraq War, and all further such pointless military endeavors

4) Wal-Mart

5) Corporate monopolies

6) politicians accepting special-interest money and perks

7) retaining Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, etc., in their entirety

8) common sense gun-control laws (ie. allowing local and state police to determine the competency of residents who want to purchase handguns; against shall-issue CCW (but for a slight loosening of "may-issue" CCW)

9) Rainbow Curriculum-type education (ie. hyper political-correctness)

10) prayer in school

11) knee-jerk anti-Americanism and soldier-bashing

12) lying and propaganda in all its forms; I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- doesn't matter what the source is, FOX News or Michael Moore

13) demagoguery

I could go on-and-on, but I'll leave the "FOR" for some other time.

[brentspeak]

59. Clarification:

I listed "retaining Social Security...", and "common sense gun-control laws" under things I'm "AGAINST". Wrong category; I'm completely FOR those two things. Everything else I listed I'm against.

[mortlefaucheur]

73. I Saw That. Until further consideration,

[silvermachine]

74. self delete

Responded to wrong party, sorry.

[silvermachine]

75. I appreciate that.

Thanks for the clarification.

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. Which facts?

Please elaborate.

[Quantess]

70. I somewhat agree.

Michael Moore makes engaging films that stir controversy, first and foremost. However, there has to be some substance, or else it wouldn't work.

Moore does seem to bend his portrayal of some things. He seems to be "projecting" sometimes. But that's the only real criticism I can give for his films. Someone needed to make that film!

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. Do a tv interview to express an opinion at your own risk.

Nobody held a gun to the guy's head to do the interview.

[jberryhill]

20. It depends on the context...

"False light" publicity is a cognizable claim, regardless of what permission Moore might have obtained from NBC. If the clip used by Moore does not accurately reflect this person's feelings, then he may have a claim.

It's better to get a release to avoid doubt. When being interviewed by NBC, this man might not have reasonably expected that his comments would be used in a movie.

I'll have to go back and take a look at the clip.

Some of the comments here characterizing this man do not strike me as fair or charitable.

[RandiFan1290]

43. Please watch it

I looked again last night and there is nothing there. No "interview" and nothing taken out of context. It is just a clip of him in the hospital bed explaining the feeling in his arms. That is all. This should be thrown out quicker than Fox VS Franken.

[Blue_Tires]

24. if Damon is a true RWer

then he shouldn't be a believer in those needless, 'frivilous' lawsuits...

I however, would not want to see MM or his attorneys try to argue their point in court with the vet in uniform in front of a sympathetic judge/jury (RWers would save that video for eternity)

[Bozita]

31. A RWer hiring a TRIAL LAWYER? It's all the rage in RW circles

Abramoff, Libby, Safavian, Rove, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney. I'm sure I've forgotten some others.

[agincourt]

25. 85 million???!!!

Sounds like a ditto-pig designer lawsuit to me. I wish there were more trouble-makers than Moore. That way they couldn't all pile on him so easily.

[uppityperson]

26. deja vu?

seems like this has already been posted, a while back, with many of the same responses. Or is it just me?

[Blue_Tires]

28. there's a similar thread running in GD

[moobu2]

32. Poor mangled guy

If he faced the reality that the war was over a bunch of lies and is being lost by a bunch of incompetent idiots, he would have to realize he lost both arms for no reason whatsoever. What an awful waste along with so many others.

I dont think he has much of a legal case though. SOme right wing group most likely encouraged him.

[Mr_Spock]

34. I'm sorry I ever posted this

:(

I should have known nothing good could come from posting this.

I just thought we should be aware that this is happening so we are informed - but this post has mostly negative bickering in it :(

[CJCRANE]

45. Bickering and discussion

are pretty much the same thing (except I guess the tone of voice is different).

I've learnt a few things from this thread anyway.

[ripple]

35. Can we get the full, unedited clips?

I wonder if his comments were taken out-of-context, or if he changed his mind later. If he was quoted out-of-context, he might have a case- especially with the current Supreme Court.

[RandiFan1290]

44. Please watch the film

This guy has no case. It is a short clip of him explaining the feeling in his arms. That is all. Nothing out of context.

[ripple]

54. Although I haven't watched the film in a while,

I think I remember the guy. I still think it could make a difference if, in the NBC piece, he also said that he supports the war, *ush, etc. Given that the context of F/911 was definitely anti-war, he might have a case for being misrepresented- or not. I've just heard of some more nuanced court rulings, where the basis is implied context, rather than strictly in black and white.

Maybe the guy just wants royalties and was advised by his attorney to claim some sort of harm in order to bolster his case.

[BrklynLiberal]

38. The lawyer is a right-wing shill with an agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1324920

[rodeodance]

47. whow--this lawyer is some scumbag!

[symbolman]

42. Simple

The Judge can just say, "I think we should settle this the democratic way, by voting.. now since this is a serious claim it should be unanimous, so let's get started.. Everyone who thinks Michael Moore should pay this man 85 million dollars, Raise your hands.."

[Keefer]

48. Just so people know...

This is from the OP's link to the article:

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.

I mean, it's not like he was wounded while carrying a weapon, or killing civilians, or by an IED. It was an accident. The same accident could have happened at a stateside base during peace time.

[jollyreaper2112]

60. wtf??!

What kind of fucked up design flaw is that if the tire can explode and take off your arms? Sounds like something needs to go back to the drawing board!

[DerBeppo]

72. isn't this the same argument the right uses

to smear cleland? just saying...

[Peace Patriot]

50. I think it just shows to go ya the impact of Moore's dissent and the...

penetration of Moore's truths about Bush, 9/11 and Iraq, into the population by means of the film. The truth has these fascists scared pissless. So they get an RW scumbag lawyer to file suit, to try to take some of that truthful glow away from the dissenter, by making it seem like he exploited a vet. He did nothing of the kind. Doesn't matter. They want the "talking point." They deal in smeary, bleary, impressionistic, factless propaganda. Moore countered them by mocking their M.O. (as he often does) but on the basis of fact. They hate him for this, because it's so effective. If it were a simple documentary, it wouldn't get very far, and wouldn't have the audience it has had. The timing of this POLITICAL attack on Moore is easily explained by the coming '06 elections, with Bush and Pug Congress' numbers in the toilet. I feel sorry for the vet, as I would for anyone who had lost limbs to Bush, but he's probably either being well-paid, or has other personal reasons for going along with this crap. (Could they have threatened his vet medical benefits? They've capable of anything.) My guess would be: money, or political ambition. Nobody loves war for honest reasons. The key may be in the Hitler line. That's pure Karl Rove.

[sethBernbaum]

51. Should be thrown out!

I read this today and actually joined this sit ebecaus eof it!

Man what a loser 85 million for an accident. doesn't him appearing on NBC make hima public figure or something. Ugh it makes me so mad. Moore is one of my heroes and is why I am getting into filmmaking.

You guys should check out Candian Bacon it one of the funniest movies ever!

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. Welcome to DU!!

[skypilot]

58. He lost his arms and...

...it's Michael Moore who has caused him emotional distress?

[tocqueville]

61. Michael Moore sued by Iraq war veteran

By Jason Szep
Thu Jun 1, 12:23 PM ET

BOSTON (Reuters) - A U.S. war veteran who lost both arms in Iraq has sued Oscar-winning director Michael Moore for $85 million, saying television clips were used without his permission in the anti-war documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" and gave a false impression that he opposed the war.

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, a supporter of President George W. Bush and the Iraq war, claims Moore misused the footage to portray him "in a false light" and as "disagreeing with the president about the war effort and as disagreeing with the war effort itself."

"It was kind of almost like the enemy was using me for propaganda. What soldier wants to be involved in that?" Damon told CBS's local television news affiliate. "I didn't lose my arms over there to come back and be used as ammunition against my commander-in-chief."

In a suit that also names Miramax Films Corp. and several other film companies, Damon says Moore never sought his consent for using segments of an NBC Nightly News interview with Damon while he was in hospital.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060601/film_nm/life_soldier_moore_dc

[GreenPartyVoter]

62. Why did he wait this long to say something? Am surprised he

didn't do so before now.

Sorry for his loss, have no idea how this court battle will play out.

[tocqueville]

65. this guy is too much of a bushie to sound credible

I smell "swiftboating"

[FloridaPat]

63. With * getting rid of veterans benefits, they have to do something I

guess. I would guess MM would get permission from NBC since they would own the copywrite.

[Patchuli]

64. I feel bad for the guy

and he's entitled not to have his picture broadcast against his will but why does this stink of a Karl Rove plot to defang Michael Moore? I smell a RAT, a BIG FAT RAT on this. Sorry...

[Robbien]

66. This is a junk lawsuit. Daily Kos has a diary up on this debunking it

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/1/10727/78906

This week, for those of you who are not familiar with this story, a disabled Iraq war vet, who's brief interview with NBC News in 2003 was used by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11, filed an $85 million lawsuit against Moore for allegedly taking the interview "out of context" and "misleading" people into thinking that he wasn't in full support of the Iraq war effort.

The Plaintiff in this case is Sgt Peter Damon, a helicopter mechanic. Damon lost both of his arms when an overinflated helicopter tire exploded.

Damon was eventually shipped stateside to Walter Reed Army Medical Center for followup treatment. There, in late October, 2003, he was among several other amputees who were interviewd by Brian Williams for a piece that ran on the NBC nightly news October 31, 2003.

The sum total of Sgt. Damon's interview with Williams was an approximate 30 second conversation where Damon was asked a couple of questions and gave brief replies.

That was it. It was not a long, discursive interview that went into serious depth. In fact, here is the ENTIRE interview transcript:

: Sergeant, how are you doing?

Sergeant PETER DAMON: Pretty good.

Corp. NELSON: The stories get more wrenching from room to room. Sergeant Peter Damon from Brockton, Mass., lost both arms.

Sgt. DAMON: Like I still feel like I have hands.

Corp. NELSON: Yeah.

Sgt. DAMON: And the pain is like my hands are being crushed in a vice. But they do a lot to help it. And they take a lot of the edge off of it. And it makes--makes it a lot more tolerable, you know, so I can just be a lot more comfortable. I--I can't imagine not having them.

WILLIAMS: Nice to meet you.

[killbotfactory]

68. If Moore got permission from NBC, the guy is out of luck

[rocktivity]

69. And if NBC didn't need Damon's permission to license the footage

he has no grounds on which to complain about how it was used. If Damon's lawsuit was truly built on principle, he'd be suing NBC, too. But I doubt that such a "staunch supporter of the war and Bush" would sue a company owned by a defense contractor!

:headbang:
rocknation