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


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 23 Feb 2016 @ 4:02am

    Tasting their own medicine

    Too bad it isn't as bitter as the ordinary people they target (you know, pocket depth differences and all).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 5:04am

    I read a post from a supposed vet claiming the movie depicts events that would never have happened. Others say it is complete BS. IDK, I did not see the movie but the claims seem reasonable.

    So, anyway ... this guy claims that his life is a BS movie?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 24 Feb 2016 @ 5:41am

      Re:

      I think he's just an opportunist who gambled and lost, based on the Cindy Garcia case and the fact that the IP maximalists are trying to get performance and publicity rights on the copyright rap sheet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 6:37am

    Remember The Hurt Locker?

    I remember it from the legal shenanigans which made me not want to watch the movie legally or otherwise. I suppose they could possibly blame piracy for that lost sale if they stretched.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 23 Feb 2016 @ 6:59am

      Re:

      Remember The Hurt Locker?

      I honestly answered no to myself, then the whole case came back to mind. I failed to remember any scene of the movie though, you can't remember what you haven't watched because people say it's not worth your time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 7:31am

      Re:

      Heh. That is the same reason why I didn't watch it. Lost sale due to anti piracy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RD, 23 Feb 2016 @ 6:46am

    Ha! Yeah right

    Ha! Yeah right. Just try to use that same argument if you ever fuck with The Mouse and see how far that gets you. The phrase "Judicial Ass Ramming" is what you will become real familiar with real fast.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 7:13am

    First, disclosure: I haven't seen the movie. I think this ruling reached the right conclusion.

    However, this caught my attention, "That the film won several Oscars and reached widespread audiences only buttresses our conclusion."

    Am I the only one who is bothered by this? Is this suggesting that if the movie had been less successful that they might have been liable under this claim? Why should the success or failure of the movie impact the free speech rights of the creators? I guarantee that at some point in the future someone will sue a less successful movie (as a form of censorship, most likely) and will point to this ruling as a reason that they don't get First Amendment protections because they didn't fare so well at the box office.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Wyrm (profile), 23 Feb 2016 @ 8:40am

      Re:

      I was also ticked off by that note.
      The success and rewards should not have any incident on such rulings. The law is supposed to apply to all, rich and poor, successful or failure...
      Then again, that's the theory. In the real world, "some are more equal than others."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Fin, 23 Feb 2016 @ 8:54am

    So popular culture is fair game?

    Basically this could be read to allow for fan games and art....

    Surely?

    Thought?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2016 @ 12:11pm

    Which Amendment?

    Hmm....

    "That outcome would be purely to the detriment of the public interest"

    I almost thought they were talking about the Fourth Amendment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.