Case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
"Legendary film actress Olivia de Havilland, now 101-years-old, is suing FX Network for the way she was depicted in the network's film series “Feud: Betty and Joan,” about the long-ago professional rivalry between two other actresses, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. In the series, de Havilland (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones) is portrayed as a hypocrite who sold gossip to promote herself.
De Havilland's lawsuit argues that FX violated her right of publicity (misappropriation) by using her name and likeness without her permission, and in a way that was damaging to her reputation. De Havilland's lawsuit will be heard in late November on an expedited basis because of her age.
You are the judge. Using US law, analyze de Havilland's claim that FX has violated her right of publicity. Specifically, what would you argue against her claim? (10 points)"
Please answer using basic US laws - reference to New York Times vs Sullivan and Sherrod vs Breitbart is slightly recommended.
Instructor
Course
Date
Law- Olivia De Havilland vs Breitbart
In the case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the plaintiff needed to show that there is actual malice when cases are brought before a court of law in case of libel and defamation. If there are calculated falsehoods and deliberate lies, then these are considered when determining that there is actual malice (Justia 35). The case became important in the defense of First Amendment rights and particularly speeches in public spaces and freedom of the press. In choosing to depict Olivia de Havilland, Fx neither requested her permission in depicting her likeness nor using her name. The issue is whether De Havilland’s right of privacy was violated after her depiction even decades later she is no longer an actress.
The Supreme Court sought to determine how the press ought to operate in a free American society in the New York Times vs. Sullivan case. As such, for protected speech, there is assumption that opinions are also protected. Prior to the case, the defense in libel actions was that the published material was factually true, but the ruling now protected published criticism of public officials unless such officials could prove that there was actual malice, such that it was false and reckless. I would argue that there is absence of malice in the depiction of De Havilland, and she is not entitled to get any damages. Even for people who are thrust into publicity, the case is relevant when public persons are involved, and de Havilland also can use her representatives to defend her in the press without requiring libel suits.