Case Brief #1
Johnston v. One America Productions, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07CV042-P-B (N.D. Miss. Oct. 2, 2007)
Nature of the case
The nature of this case is the invasion of privacy, and gross negligence, where Ellen Johnston filed a complaint against One America Production Inc, in March 2007, seeking compensation. This matter was presented in court because the defendant (One America Production Inc) wished to dismiss the claim, citing that they did not see any compensation grounds. Johnston had alleged that the film company had included her image in one of their movies, Borat. The plaintiff argued that the images of her lifting her hands to praise the Lord were released without her permission. The defendant recorded that the plaintiff’s appearance was only for three seconds, and she was not identified either by name or speech. The plaintiff was also amongst a crowd doing the same thins, and because of these findings, the defendant saw no reason for compensation.
Facts
The testimony produced by the plaintiff stated that she was men to believe that the Borat crew were filming a religious documentary to be aired in a foreign country. The defendant stated that the laws in the first amendment protected the film. Upon filing a motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that the case could not be included in any of the four rubrics of invasion of privacy, which include; intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of another’s identity for an unpermitted use, public disclosure of private facts, and holding another to the public eye in a false light.
The plaintiff insisted that the company portrayed her image in bad lighting and invading her privacy. She claimed that the company committed this fraud intentionally for their financial gain and deliberately caused her emotional distress. She pointed out that the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be converted to one for summary judgment considering that the defendant referred to matters outside the motion. She also provided items as evidence against the defendant’s motion to dismiss, including extracts from the book Clearance and Copyright; Everything the Independent Filmmaker Needs to Know, and supporting this was a section of an interview with Sarah Brown Cohen with the National Public Radio.
In response to the above exhibits, the defendant filed a motion to strike, and they stated that their own evidence provided in the motion to dismiss was not outside the preceding because they related to the plaintiff’s claim. The defendants also argued that the encyclopedia articles involving Pentecostal practices, provided as exhibits, were part of the judicial reference system. Finally, the defendant stated that due to the plaintiff’s attachments of matters outside the pleadings, they could not turn the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.
Issue
Did One America Production Inc invade Johnston’s privacy by filming her without consent and making her appearance in Borat and portray her in a false light by showing her image with her hands raised? Does the defendant’s motion to dismiss qualify for approval?
Holding and decision
The defendant has grounds to argue for the motion to dismiss and counter the plaintiff’s claims of invasion of privacy. This is relevant to the evidence exhibited above and the plaintiff’s failure to provide enough evidence that proves seclusion and invasion of privacy. However, the claim remains since the defendant was unable to prove that the plaintiff’s claim of negligence was invalid, and they also failed to prove that they did not use the plaintiff’s image for commercial gain and for the intention of portraying her in a bad light.
Concise rule of law
The defendant requested the motion to dismiss to be reviewed and that the plaintiff’s claims should be shelved with the expenses of this case directed to the plaintiff.
Analysis
The Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied. I believe that this decision is appropriate, considering that the company benefited commercially through Johnston’s images. This should at least warrant compensation to the plaintiff. I believe some form of consent should be issued before filming an individual and releasing their images to the public in the form of a movie, seeing that they were not contracted for the role.
work cited
Johnston v. One America Productions, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07CV042-P-B (N.D. Miss. Oct. 2, 2007)