Hurt Locker Publicity Rights Lawsuit Brought By War Veteran Tossed Again On 1st Amendment Grounds

from the hurts-donut dept

Remember The Hurt Locker? Yes, the film that perhaps became best known for resulting in all kinds of legal action against those who pirated it also faced a legal challenge of its own. Jeffrey Sarver is a veteran of the Iraq War who claimed in California court that The Hurt Locker was totally about his own life, for which he wanted compensation, but also that it portrayed him in a falsely negative light, for which he also wanted compensation. In other words, it was a portrayal of him and also not, now gimme some money. That initial battle was decided on First Amendment grounds, with the court affirming the film as a transformative work protected as speech and, without any actual evidence that there was a false portrayal specifically of Sarver, who is not named in the film, there was no grounds for the suit.

And that really should have been the end of that. But Sarver appealed the ruling anyway and, half a decade later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court's ruling.

We conclude that this focus on the conduct of the Iraq War satisfies California’s standards for determining whether an issue is one of public concern. That war, its dangers, and soldiers’ experiences were subjects of longstanding public attention. Indeed, The Hurt Locker, with its unique focus on IED disposal teams, contributed to that attention. That the film won several Oscars and reached widespread audiences only buttresses our conclusion. The film and the narrative of its central character Will James speak directly to issues of a public nature.

The ruling, having affirmed the applicability of the First Amendment to the film, then moves on to Sarver's publicity rights claim.

But, even assuming for the sake of argument that Sarver can establish all elements of his claim, the defendants contend that their production of the film is nevertheless protected under the First Amendment. That is, they argue that allowing Sarver to pursue his right of publicity action against them would infringe their constitutional right to free speech. Because it is dispositive, we consider that argument first.

And, from there, under the shade of a First Amendment umbrella, Sarver's publicity rights claim stands no chance and the court affirms the lower ruling. Because, to do otherwise, would have unbelievable chilling effects on artistic and political expression regarding public figures, living or dead. Imagine if films, books, games, and music could face legal action for discussions and portrayals on matters such as war, foreign affairs, and the like. That outcome would be purely to the detriment of the public interest, which is perhaps more paramount in matters such as these than in any other.

Hopefully this will finally put this nonsense to bed.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, free speech, hurt locker, jeffrey sarver, publicity rights
Companies: voltage pictures

Soldier Who Claimed 'Hurt Locker' Must Be About Him SLAPPed Down

from the you're-so-vain,-you-think-this-hurt-locker-is-about-you dept

While we still think the producers of the movie Hurt Locker are crazy for trying to sue thousands of people who downloaded their movie, we certainly supported their position in a different legal fight. In early 2010, a soldier named Jeffrey Sarver sued, claiming that the movie was based on his life. Of course, as we noted at the time, it's not illegal to make a movie based on someone's life without their permission, but he tried to argue that the movie violated certain "ground rules" that were agreed to before he was interviewed by the screenwriter. We also found it amusing that, not only did he claim that the movie was about him, he also claimed "defamation" saying that the movie portrayed him in a false light. I still have trouble seeing how both could be the case. If they accurately portray him, it's illegal... but if they don't accurately portray him, it's defamation?

Either way, the case has not survived its own hurt locker. Using California's anti-SLAPP law, the judge made quick work dismissing the case. The judge noted that the movie was protected by the First Amendment, and the lawsuit was an attempt to silence that. Separately, it found little chance that the guy would prevail on a publicity rights claim, because "no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the work was not transformative," since the movie character was, in fact, quite different from the actual guy. As for the defamation claim, the court dumped those, noting that the movie is fiction and not about the guy... but even if it were the movie probably wasn't defamatory:

The Court agrees with Defendants that the movie is sufficiently transformative such that Plaintiff’s defamation claim is barred. Further, Will James is not Plaintiff’s name, and the beginning of the film contains a specific disclaimer that the film is a work of fiction. (Hurt Locker Motion at 15.) However, even assuming, arguendo, that a reasonable viewer would believe the movie is about Plaintiff, he has nevertheless failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the depictions of him are false.

The judge says that Sarver's complaints that the movie portrays him as a bad father and having no respect or compassion for human life, don't rise to the level of defamation. In fact, in what may be a bit of film criticism by the judge, the various claims are disputed, saying that the character of Will James in the film does appear to care about his son, does have compassion and was not "fascinated with war and death." It also notes that the evidence suggests that Sarver was pretty fascinated by his job in the war, so even if the movie character was portrayed that way, it wouldn't be defamation.

There were a few other charges in the lawsuit, and each one was dismissed with ease. In fact, things were so against Server that the judge has now ordered him to pay the legal fees of the movie's producers. Nice to see a little common sense pushback for people being overly aggressive in claiming rights they don't have.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, hurt locker, jeffrey sarver, publicity rights
Companies: voltage pictures