Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over comedian Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, in a suit filed over a segment in which a Texas resident appeared. Busch v. Viacom International Inc., 3:06-CV-0493-L. The Daily Show broadcast a parody of a dietary drink that TV evangelist Pat Robertson promoted. The Daily Show segment included a clip from Robertson's show The 700 Club in which plaintiff Phillip Busch, a user of the dietary drink, shook Robertson's hand. Busch filed claiming defamation and misappropriation of image in the Daily Show piece.
The district court first found no specific jurisdiction over Stewart, explaining that his show's segment 'was about Robertson, not Plaintiff. The six-second clip at issue is a replay of an episode of The 700 Club where Plaintiff voluntarily appeared on the set in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The piece contains no reference to Texas or any activities by Plaintiff in Texas. The piece was not directed at viewers of The Daily Show in Texas, but was broadcast nationwide ' Moreover, Stewart did not visit Texas, call Texas or conduct any interviews or research in Texas related to the piece, nor was he involved in selecting or editing the challenged clip ' At the time the challenged broadcast was aired, Stewart had never heard of Plaintiff and did not know he lived in Texas.'
As for general jurisdiction, which is based on continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts with the forum state, the district court noted that Stewart 'has never lived in Texas, has never owned any real property in Texas, has never maintained an office in Texas, has never had any employees or agents in Texas, has never had any professional licenses, bank accounts or telephone listings in Texas and has only visited Texas twice ' once to perform a show in Lubbock in the mid-1990s and once to perform a show in Austin in 1998 or 1999.'
The district court then dismissed Busch's remaining claims as to Viacom International. On the defamation claim, the court emphasized: '[B]ecause Plaintiff's image appears in a 'fake endorsement' ' of Robertson's diet shake on The Daily Show, a satiric program, no reasonable viewer would have believed that the challenged clip contained assertions of fact about Plaintiff.' The misappropriation claim was then dismissed on the ground that 'Plaintiff's image was in the public domain after he voluntarily appeared on The 700 Club in July 2005 to publicly discuss his use of Pat's Diet Shake ' Moreover, as discussed above with regard to the dismissal of Plaintiff's defamation claim, the First Amendment protects parody.'
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over comedian Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, in a suit filed over a segment in which a Texas resident appeared. Busch v.
The district court first found no specific jurisdiction over Stewart, explaining that his show's segment 'was about Robertson, not Plaintiff. The six-second clip at issue is a replay of an episode of The 700 Club where Plaintiff voluntarily appeared on the set in
As for general jurisdiction, which is based on continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts with the forum state, the district court noted that Stewart 'has never lived in Texas, has never owned any real property in Texas, has never maintained an office in Texas, has never had any employees or agents in Texas, has never had any professional licenses, bank accounts or telephone listings in Texas and has only visited Texas twice ' once to perform a show in Lubbock in the mid-1990s and once to perform a show in Austin in 1998 or 1999.'
The district court then dismissed Busch's remaining claims as to Viacom International. On the defamation claim, the court emphasized: '[B]ecause Plaintiff's image appears in a 'fake endorsement' ' of Robertson's diet shake on The Daily Show, a satiric program, no reasonable viewer would have believed that the challenged clip contained assertions of fact about Plaintiff.' The misappropriation claim was then dismissed on the ground that 'Plaintiff's image was in the public domain after he voluntarily appeared on The 700 Club in July 2005 to publicly discuss his use of Pat's Diet Shake ' Moreover, as discussed above with regard to the dismissal of Plaintiff's defamation claim, the First Amendment protects parody.'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.