
SLAPP035 – Understanding the Public Interest Requirement
Apr 21, 2025 - 23:21
Radio and PodcastLive Radio & Podcasts
de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC If you sell t-shirts bearing the images of the Three Stooges, can you be sued for violating their right of publicity? And if you create and broadcast an 8-part docudrama centering on Bett...
SLAPP025 – Anti-SLAPP Motion Defeats Gone With the Wind Actress is an episode from California SLAPP Law by Aaron Morris: Anti-SLAPP Attorney. de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC If you sell t-shirts bearing the images of the Three Stooges, can...
This episode belongs to California SLAPP Law.
Use the player on this page to stream the episode online.
Published Aug 26, 2018, 23:26 long, audio available.
de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC If you sell t-shirts bearing the images of the Three Stooges, can you be sued for violating their right of publicity? And if you create and broadcast an 8-part docudrama centering on Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, can Olivia de Havilland sue you for including the details of HER life in that story? Well, the just decided case of de Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC answers both those questions. I enjoyed this anti-SLAPP case because it beautifully illustrates how some judges just don’t understand precedent. Olivia de Havilland, who is now 102 years old, did not like the way she was protrayed in the FX docudrama, “Feud: Bette and Joan,” centering on deceased actresses Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. In case you don’t recognize the name, de Havilland portrayed Melanie in Gone With the Wind. She was the one Scarlett was always jealous of, as I recall. She sued FX, claiming the portrayal of her in the show amounted to the unauthorized use of her name and likeness for commercial gain. FX responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court, Judge Holly Kendig presiding, denied the anti-SLAPP motion, relying in large part on a California Supreme Court decision called Comedy III Productions v. Gary Saderup, Inc. FX appealed. Listen to Episode 25 to see how it all turned out. What is the current status of the requirement that an anti-SLAPP motion be heard within 30 days of filing? Previously, Fair Political Practices Commission v. American Civil Right Coalition, Inc. and Decker v. U.D. Registry had held that the 30-day requirement was jurisdictional. Now Karnazes v. Ares holds that it is the clerk’s burden to set the hearing within 30 days. But does that mean counsel is safe if a hearing is outside the 30-day deadline. Listen to find out. The post SLAPP025 – Anti-SLAPP Motion Defeats Gone With the Wind Actress appeared first on California SLAPP Law .
You can listen to SLAPP025 – Anti-SLAPP Motion Defeats Gone With the Wind Actress online on Radio and Podcast. Open the player on this page to stream the available audio.
SLAPP025 – Anti-SLAPP Motion Defeats Gone With the Wind Actress is an episode from California SLAPP Law by Aaron Morris: Anti-SLAPP Attorney.
This episode is 23:26 long.
This episode was published on Aug 26, 2018.
Yes. Use the heart button on the episode page to add it to your favorite episodes list.
Yes. This page shows related episodes from California SLAPP Law when more episodes are available from the podcast feed.
You can listen to SLAPP025 – Anti-SLAPP Motion Defeats Gone With the Wind Actress on this page when the episode audio is available from the podcast feed.
SLAPP025 – Anti-SLAPP Motion Defeats Gone With the Wind Actress is from California SLAPP Law by Aaron Morris: Anti-SLAPP Attorney.
Published Aug 26, 2018 and 23:26 long