Kardashians Allegedly Arguing Copyright Gives Them Rights To Get Their Father's Diary
from the general-ownership-of-anything-statute dept
We've seen copyright law abused and misused so many times that it's rarely a surprise anymore to hear of some wacky story. But this one's new. Kenichi Tanaka points us to an article about how the Kardashian kids -- Kourtney, Kim, Khloe and Rob Kardashian -- are apparently suing their stepmother over their father's personal belongings.The family's power attorney Marty Singer released a statement regarding the situation, telling omg! Yahoo, "The Kardashians and Kris Jenner have filed a suit against Ellen Pearson for taking personal property belonging to them by virtue of Robert Kardashian’s will and by virtue of copyright protection. Today's filing should serve as notice that they will vigorously defend their rights when forced to do so."Apparently, in his will, he left "his personal tangible and intangible property" to his children. Yet, they claim, Pearson (whom father Kardashian married just two months before his death) has held onto some of his things, including (most importantly) his diary. Why is that so important? It appears that Pearson has been revealing things from the diary which is somewhat embarrassing to the Kardashian clan.
Pearson has been in the news lately, recently claiming that Khloe is not Robert's biological daughter and that Kris Jenner is an abusive mother. Pearson shared excerpts from Robert's diaries with In Touch Weekly, telling the magazine, "I am simply stating the facts and the truth -- their father’s truth. I simply delivered hand-written diaries from their father. They are my property at the disposal of whatever I so choose. Robert would have no problem with that.”This is interesting on a variety of levels, and I imagine might make for an interesting law school exam question. By my read (and I'll let the decent number of law school professors who read this site correct my errors), the copyright claim here is highly questionable on a variety of fronts. First off, the lawsuit has been filed in
Even if there was a copyright issue (and, yes, there likely is a copyright over the diary thanks to our silly automatic copyright on everything policy), it seems like they're confusing the copyright in the content with the physical work itself, which are two different things. Owning the physical book is different from owning the copyright. So, even if they do have some rights to the copyright in the book, the copyright claim alone would not be enough to get the physical copy from Pearson. Nor would it likely be enough to silence her from revealing statements from the diary, which likely qualify under fair use (though, certainly, arguments to the contrary could be made).
It is, of course, entirely possible that there is some legitimate claim over the tangible property based on the will, but my knowledge of estate law is pretty limited. I just find it bizarre that they're even bringing copyright into this at all. It just seems like yet another case where people think copyright is something it's not -- and they're looking to use it to try to make an additional claim of ownership where it really doesn't fit or make sense. To some extent, this is yet another example of the problem of what's become of copyright law today. It's so widely abused that so many people seem to think that it's a tool to get whatever they want. Copyright is not a "general ownership of anything I want" statute, but many seem to treat it that way.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: kardashian, marty singer
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not exactly a model case....
I do find this to be an interesting question, though: if the stepmother illegally has possession of the diary, can the rightful owners prevent her from disclosing what she's read in the book? When you go to a sporting event, the fine print on the ticket prohibits you from disclosing the score or otherwise transmitting information about the event. Can a similar injunction apply to a diary, which everyone knows is considered private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exactly a model case....
But I'm more inclined to think that a case here would come out differently, based solely on the original post here.
First, there's less of a problem on the fourth factor, as the people besmirched by the revelations are unlikely to publish the diary themselves or license it to be published. Similar thinking applies for parodies (victims of parodies don't license parodies as a rule, so there's lenient fair use analyses for parodies).
Second, to the extent that the widow is publishing the raw information rather than the precise wording, it sounds more like she's only revealing the facts or opinions presented as facts (see e.g. Nash v CBS in which a hypothesis that Dillinger was not killed in the 30s was not copyrightable) and is therefore okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exactly a model case....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, you didn't bother to read the actual complaint to see if they are in fact making a federal copyright claim in state court (which is unlikely for obvious reasons).
Even if there was a copyright issue (and, yes, there likely is a copyright over the diary thanks to our silly automatic copyright on everything policy), it seems like they're confusing the copyright in the content with the physical work itself, which are two different things.
And you based this on the complaint? Of course not.
I just find it bizarre that they're even bringing copyright into this at all. It just seems like yet another case where people think copyright is something it's not -- and they're looking to use it to try to make an additional claim of ownership where it really doesn't fit or make sense.
Or you're just revealing how much you hate copyright by assuming without doing any actual homework that they're in fact making a federal copyright claim in state court.
o some extent, this is yet another example of the problem of what's become of copyright law today. It's so widely abused that so many people seem to think that it's a tool to get whatever they want. Copyright is not a "general ownership of anything I want" statute, but many seem to treat it that way.
Get up on that soapbox, Mikey! Don't let facts or reality or journalism get in your way. So boring! Someone may have possibly, but probably didn't, tried to abuse copyright! OMG! Copyright is so freaking terrible! OMG! OMG!
Snorezville, dude. Wouldn't you rather discuss your beliefs on the merits than waste time with completely empty (like the Kardashians!) posts such as this? No. Of course not. You don't do merits. You do posts like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 24th, 2013 @ 12:42pm
Oh wait, this isn't your blog.
Guess you'll have to just live with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 24th, 2013 @ 12:42pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 24th, 2013 @ 12:42pm
Excuse me, but -why- are you here?
Are you being paid to do this? If so, -who- is employing you?
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 24th, 2013 @ 12:42pm
Im asking, instead of "responding to mikes claims" why dont you write your own blog where you can write a post on the merits. not in response to mikes post. sheesh, you are a fucking idiot.
It makes complete sense to me, its you who doesnt understand.
guess reading comprehension isnt your strong suit.
Try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second link down: http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/kardashian-complaint3.pdf
Oh look, it's federal court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
84bkfast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Down to tainting copyright with Kardashians, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Down to tainting copyright with Kardashians, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Kunts may not know law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Stepmom.........just scan the diary and release it on the Net.It will be seen by Billions within a week.
Case Closed !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright as a "general ownership of anything I want" statute
It's particularly obnoxious in the case of dead artists whose copyrights have, thanks to Disney Sonny Bono, been given a life longer than that of most of the artists themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is about property and copyright
It's a no brainer. The diary belongs to the kids, and the material is copyright. It isn't one or the other, it is both.
Is this another Techdirt miss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it is about property and copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real news is...
Oh shit... they're on reality TV... god the world is going to ruin. Aren't they? I bet they are, I never watch that drivel but I just bet they are. No wonder they irritate the bejesus out of me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]