Family Sues Over Autopsy Images Appearing In Southland Opening Montage
from the i-see-dead-people dept
Well, this is a new one for me. I've never watched the now-concluded show Southland, but it was apparently a typical police procedural show known for being particularly realistic and gritty. As you'd imagine for such a show, the opening credits montage was apparently equally gritty and realistic. So realistic, in fact, that the show's producers used some real-life autopsy photos from real murder victims. One victim's family is, to say the least, not pleased. The victim's mother and sister have filed suit in California.
The suit was filed by Hilda Abarca and Jessica Abarca on their own behalf and as successor to the late Andy Nelson Abarca, who the suit says was murdered in 2005. The defendants are Warner Bros. Television, producer John Wells, NBC, Turner Network Television, the city of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles and Warner Home Video.I'd really like at this point to tell you all what the actual law regarding autopsy photos and their usage is, but it's one of those areas of law so spiderwebbed throughout federal and state laws that it's quite difficult to come to any real conclusions. The Southern Poverty Law Center's explanation in an unrelated post appears to be that autopsies and their photos are generally considered public domain, except of course when individual states carve out exemptions to this for specific types of usage (i.e. pending criminal court cases). California law is especially ambiguous on this front.
According to the suit Andy Nelson Abarca was murdered on Sept. 28, 2005. In mid-September 2013 the plaintiffs say they saw his autopsy photo at the beginning of Southland, apparently taken while his body was in the custody of the country coroner.
In some states, including California, autopsy reports are deemed to be confidential under public-records exemptions that protect confidential law enforcement records being used in pending criminal cases. In such states, it’s possible to go back and argue for access once the prosecution is concluded and the “pending criminal case” rationale no longer applies.Since this instance has absolutely nothing to do with a pending court case, one would think the general rule of thumb, autopsies are public records, would apply. The law being as ambiguous as it is, however, means this case is likely to go forward without a swift dismissal. And, boy, is the suit from the family members a doozy.
As a result of the use of this photo, the suit says both the mother and daughter have “suffered anxiety, anger, hopelessness, fear and distrust of authority,” as well as “physical and emotional discomfort, injury and damage, apprehension, psychological trauma, loss of dignity, nightmares, loss of trust” and other injuries. The suit says this has impacted their health, strength and activity and caused injury to their nervous system and person. It means they will have to incur expenses to treat psychological injuries using drugs and others “sundries” required in the treatment.As anyone who has read my work knows, I certainly would never want to be insensitive to someone filing a lawsuit, but it strikes me that one would have to have a real commitment to watching a show's opening montage that included such damaging mental material to warrant the kind of physical and psychological therapy alleged by the suit, not to mention the pharmaceuticals. It's also unclear to me how an opening montage that features the lifeless body of a loved one would cause any damage to the nervous system and person of someone watching the images, unless of course these people own a television that has the capacity to punch them, in which case, I mean, just throw out the TV, right? I mean, the two family members could just use their remotes.
The suit seeks damages of at least $750 for each unauthorized use (every time the show played) as well as punitive damages and an injunction to stop the future use of the photo.
That said, the case might be useful in getting some more solid caselaw on the books regarding the use of autopsy records and their status as public records. While I can understand the discomfort of this particular family's plight, the end result should not be more barriers to public information and work performed by public servants.
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: andy abarca, autopsy images, privacy, public records, publicity rights, southland
Companies: nbc, warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright Industry Logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dealing with the idea that their personal tragedy is being replayed over and over, is saddening.
Part of me wants to know how much they are actually trying to get.
"They had no knowledge of the photo and never authorized its release, per the suit."
So one wonders how they discovered it was a photo of their relative.
While the law should be made more clear, one also needs to admit that it is unfairly applied. A famous person dies, and money changes hands in lawsuits... someone not famous dies and the lawsuit is seen as questionable.
We are a nation of lawsuits based on rights and presumed rights... and the payday that they bring. The law is an imperfect thing, but just adding 0's to a number never seems to solve much beyond encouraging more people to look for a way they can get their share.
I feel bad for the family, but it doesn't appear they have any legal rights to the photo. Southland is wrapped, there is no way to magically change every copy they sold to edit out the photo. The "rightsholder" could make a nice gesture and offer to alter them moving forward, but I don't think they should be on the hook for millions because it was legal but feels "wrong" to a jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was his mother and his sister. I'm guessing they recognized him.
I can't even imagine what that must have been like for them.
All legal concerns aside...
WHAT THE %$*&#$# WERE THE MAKERS OF THIS SHOW THINKING? "Ooh hey here's a murder victim, wouldn't it be cool if we could get a photo and use it to heighten the drama!"
Basic human decency. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While it isn't the most feeling thing possible, I'm not sure it was illegal or what other than an apology they should have to do.
Having not seen the opening credits myself, one wonders if there are other pictures as well and is this just going to open up a can of worms.
Yes they should have produced their own dummy photos to use, but it is not like someone picked this exact photo to torment these exact people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Warner Bros. Television, producer John Wells, NBC, Turner Network Television, the city of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles and Warner Home Video should not profit from something that they did not have permission to use and should be charged with theft, should be bankrupted and forced to make the family whole.
Isn't that the way it works when it is Hollywood's property that was used without permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can imagine if the sister and/or mother were watching the show and saw their brother unexpectedly how upsetting that might be. However, since the show had ended 6 months before they claim they saw the image it makes me wonder if they were told about the use of a photo of their brother first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that's the real story there, I think. Someone was given a low budget and a short lead time to create an intro, and didn't have time to fake a range of body photos (as is often the case). They realised they had access to public domain material they could use, and utilised it in such a short shot that they didn't think anyone would have time to identify the victims unless they deliberately paused it.
It's a little thoughtless, especially with such recent victims, but it's definitely a case of negligence rather than malice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You missed at least two I could find on a quick search - Channel 4 in the UK and Antena 3 in Spain - and you also didn't factor in re-runs, rentals, streaming, etc. If they're shooting for compensation for every international and online viewing, it'll be a ridiculous figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Privacy of whom?
The deceased is, well, deceased, so do they have any privacy rights? If it's a violation of the deceased privacy rights, then they are the harmed party, therefore let's see the deceased file the claim then.
I can see no violations of the plaintiff's privacy: they are not subjects of the photos; the photo's don't reveal any private information of the plaintiff's, unless in the background we can see the plaintiffs' WiFi password written on the wall?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, as noted in the article, it's such a convoluted subject that we'll probably have to wait for the curt to decide what applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point wasn't about whether or not Copyright applies. My point was about Laws giving rights to the dead.
CONTEXT! It doesn't end w/ what I say, but includes what I'm responding to!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, they have. See for example the various conspicary-driven cases around the photos of Vincent Foster's suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For somebody else to use images taken during their loved ones autopsy for their personal financial gain is morally questionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please demonstrate how the use of that particular photo led to personal financial gain for the producers of the show vs. the use of any of the other photos in the montage sequence in the opening credits or any other one that they could have used but didn't. Did that particular photo lead people to watch the show when they otherwise wouldn't have? Did that particular photo have some special artistic quality that led people to record the show on their DVR and pause the opening credits and just stare at it? Did the photo have several scripts and storyboards sketched out on the back of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The autopsy photo was probably obtained at no or little cost. Maybe a couple hundred dollars of peoples time to make and edit copies of the original.
The alternative would have been to have a special effects team create a similar photo. This would have easily cost $10,000, $20,000 or even more, to make a fake body, rent the props and location, hire a photographer, photo shop work, etc.
So the financial gain is the difference between what they paid for the exiting photo and having to pay for someone to stage things. Nowhere near the amounts that people might think of as a "financial gain", but a gain none the less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I could make a similar image with myself as the dead body (no model release!) with my smartphone and software I already bought. And I could do it in less than a few hours and it wouldn't cost more than whatever a multimedia or film student would charge (unpaid intern?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would certainly not argue that the victim's family should be able to control access to the autopsy photo. If a coroner takes a photo as part of his duties, nobody should get a copyright on that - it should be public domain.
But perhaps there is a difference between having free access to the information, and a nationwide broadcast of a picture of someone's dead relative to be merely used as a throwaway background in a work of fiction.
You think so? It seems to me that the plaintiffs are pretty sympathetic and the defendants are not. Someone who had their dead relative's picture shown to them vs the corporation who used that picture as a prop. The caselaw might not go the way you want it to.
If copyright violation is alleged, (it's hard to tell if it is since the source link is low on legal details and I don't see why the family would have a copyright on a photo they didn't even know about, but the $750 sounds like statutory damages, and why else are we even talking about fair use?) it's likely a federal lawsuit, and if it's in California, that would put it in the same circuit that recently decided that actresses likely have their own separate copyright in their 5 second performance in a film. I'm not sure why you're so optimistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Should Be Upset!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't imagine the horror of this situation, compounding the horror of the murder itself. For the producers to just use it without consideration is at the very least stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps it would have been impossible. In that case, the decent thing to do, of course, is to not use the photo.
This is why you have actors. Get them to wear makeup and/or use CGI to make them look dead, like you presumably do on the actual show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about HIPPA laws?
2003 HIPPA Carification
45 CFR 164.512 (g)...
Standard: Uses and Disclosures About Decedents
1. Coroners and Medical Examiners. A covered entity may disclose protected health information to a coroner or medical examiner for the purpose of identifying a deceased person, determining a cause of death, or other duties as authorized by law. A covered entity that also performs the duties of a coroner or medical examiner may use protected health information for the purposes described in this paragraph.
According to Dr. Stöppler autopsy records are covered by the same protections as those of a living patient. Medicine.net Reference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about HIPPA laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about HIPPA laws?
Additionally, the following are NOT protected health information: police and fire incident reports, and court records. Also, birth records and autopsy records are not protected health information to the extent they are maintained by state agencies. In addition, if a state FOIA law designates death records and/or autopsy reports as public information that must be disclosed, covered entities may disclose that protected health information without an authorization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy isn't copyright
And by the way, if a doctor is taking pictures of his deceased patient that AREN'T medical records then that is a whole new level of creepy..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privacy isn't copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Privacy isn't copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Privacy isn't copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Privacy isn't copyright
This is a complete violation of the privacy act AND we all have are same rights when we are dead just as we do when we are alive...
Just because you pass away doesn't mean a medical facility can now plaster your information all over the world. It still remains confidential for ever!!!
They do need to be sued so as this came become very public so as it will STOP!!! This is not the first time it has happen and it needs to be the last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In an age where we can easily make just as 'real' looking pictures using makeup and special effects, there is zero reason to include photos of real dead people despite their families wishes, other than to claim you have to draw attention to your show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.419eater.com profiled at least a couple of such cases where the photos of someone violently ill (now dead) were circulated in these letters. His widowed wife tried to have them removed but failed.
I think some parallels can be drawn here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is an example of a much bigger problem
In this example, some people wanting to provide the opening credits for a televised set of stories use real photographs of a real dead person. I'm sure that the lawyers would have given the go ahead as it would have been found to not be illegal (not against the letter of the law). I would suggest that in their excitement for their new show, that no consideration would have been made (or if made, overruled) for the feelings of the family of the dead person. A lack of consideration/compassion for the bereaved family.
When only the letter of the law is considered, then we have injustice arising. We see more and more laws and regulations created to "fix" problems with existing situations. Whether this being laws relating to "not offending" someone or laws relating to international taxation matters.
The essential point is that much of what is legislated about now is simply to regulate and control the actions of all and sundry at the expense of all and sundry.
There will always be those who will use the law to obtain advantage over others and there will always be those who will help them find the loopholes or write the needed changes into the law. As time goes on, we have lost the ability to be compassionate (this does not mean agree with) to others.
In this example, those who used the images were not thinking and unwise. On the other hand, the family is also being unwise by now trying to close the barn door after the horses have bolted. I suspect that lawyers are involved with both sorts of stupidity.
I would suggest that the appropriate action at this time would be to put this behind them and move forward. There will always be reminders of the "bad" things that have happened to us in the past, it is how we live in the present that determines whether or not the past becomes a burden that is unbearable. I also wonder if the family in question has been allowed to grieve properly. if not, then such things will cause them great anguish. Grief takes time and if it is not done, there is great trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So shouldn't the guy's family be suing the state for releasing the image in the first place. Maybe they're suing the makers of the show because they know exactly how far they'd get if they did sue the right organisation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are indeed suing the city and county. Presumably the state itself wasn't involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any case, I predict that the studio will settle this case and that the opening montage will be changed to eliminate the photo, both in syndication (if the show is syndicated) and on the DVD releases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nervous System Damage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nervous System Damage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First of all, the county of Los Angeles should have exercised more restraint and they should not have released those autopsy photos and I seriously doubt that the law was designed to allow the entertainment industry to profit from those autopsy photos.
Second, Warner Brothers Television, producer John Wells, NBC, Turner Network Television, the city of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles and Warner Home Video have all set themselves up for liability because not withstanding that the scene appears on a large number of episodes in the series, but also the rebroadcast of those episodes, the DVD releases, digital downloads, torrent downloads, Blu-ray releases and releases to other regions and other countries, the aforementioned people and entities may be in a lot of trouble for using those photos without permission from the family.
I also expect that the aftermath of this lawsuit could force municipalities, cities, states and even congress itself, to pass a law making it a crime to use sensitive photos such as autopsies in any commercial venue.
Fact of the matter is, Warner Brothers and everyone involved, have commercially profited off those autopsy photos in such a way as to invade the privacy of Andy Nelson Abarca's family.
Such autopsy photos, even if they are considered to be in the public domain, are not without limit. I think some overzealous crew member on Southland discovered the photos and decided to suggest them to the producers to add to the montage, not realizing what kind of impact it would have on the family.
Imagine that a member of your family was brutally murdered and the country medical examiner took photos and then Paramount, Universal or Warner Brothers decided to include those photos in every episode of one of their TV shows. There you are, sitting at home, interested in watching this TV series and you're confronted with the autopsy photos of your slain family member. Nobody can imagine what kind of psychological effect that could have on a family member and it was callous of Warner Brothers and everyone mentioned above to even use those photos in the production of their TV series.
These studios have special effects departments, they could have easily created fake autopsy photos, but they decided to use real-life autopsy photos? This isn't like the TV series COPS or World's Dangerous Police Chases. Everyone involved in this TV series should be sued because they intruded into the private lives of this mourning family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now *that's* how you do hyperbole!
Seriously though, the creation of the opening credit were created by someone, the editor had to assemble the footage and the producer would have approved them, presumably with some backup from a legal department. That's it. Nobody else would have been involved in the actual creation of the footage.
That's enough, no need to start threatening to sue everyone from the best boy to iTunes because someone did something thoughtless in a place of which they had no knowledge or influence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they are in the public domain, that means it gives everyone else exactly that right.
I'm curious, though -- why is profit the basis of what you consider to be unacceptable use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um, that's EXACTLY what it means for something to be in the public domain....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anyone else find it interesting...
The timing smells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably something like: Let's not waste time and money creating fake pictures, let's just include real people. No one will ever complain, and if they do too f'in bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
part2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timothy Geigner - flaming asshole farts again
Why does Techdirt subject itself to the humiliation of having this flaming asshole's brain farts featured as its very own content?
I don't give a flying fuck about the law, free speech, the first or the hundred and first amendment, the public domain nor any of the rest of that bullshit.
Any entity who does this to members of a grieving family for the purpose of commercial exploitation of their tragedy and grief should be punished with a mandatory sentence of the corporate death penalty: expropriation without any compensation to owners, shareholders or creditors except only individual, non-controlling employees of the enterprise.
Why include creditors and not just those folks with equity? Because in today's totally financialized world, creditors often become the real controling interest in an enterprise. I could say something like that there is a rebuttable presumption against the creditors, but hey, I'm not drafting a statute but making a MORAL point:
Anyone who consciously exploits for profit the tragedy, misery and suffering of others should be subject to sanctions devastating enough so that it will not occur to anyone in the next few hundred years to copy their conduct.
If expropriation without compensation is insufficient to achieve the desired result, then I would suggest hiring the guy who chops people's heads off in our best pal Saudi Arabia to do so to those responsible, and decorating Hollywood's Walk of Fame with the heads of the miscreants hoisted above the sidewalk on spikes.
This to illustrate to the next generations that there are some "creative" efforts to turn someone else's pain into your own profits, no matter how "legal," that come with too high a price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]