Lindsey Lohan has finally been given the go ahead to proceed with her 2014 lawsuit against the game makers of “Grand Theft Auto V.” She claims they used her likeness without her consent to create one of the in-game characters.

Lohan alleges that the game’s publisher Take-Two Interactive “unequivocally” referenced her when creating the character Lacey Jonas.

So how much of a resemblance does the character have to LiLo?

According to a fan site for the game, Jonas’ character is described as a spoiled young blonde starlet famous for her work in high school movies, who spends most of her time in the game trying to evade the paparazzi. She’s also described as being “full of herself” and very “image-conscious.”

The amended complaint filed by Lohan alleges that the game also references her star role in “Mean Girls” and the West Hollywood hotel where she once lived. Lohan also claims that the publishers “used a look-alike model to evoke [her] persona and image” by imitating a bikini-clad photo of her that was taken in 2007.

You can see the similarities in the images below.

Can’t imagine why anyone thinks GTA’s ‘Lacey Jonas’ was based on Lindsay Lohan. http://t.co/qnZm2QgF23 pic.twitter.com/hiefD3vENP

— HuffPostUKTech (@HuffPostUKTech) August 28, 2014

New York Supreme Court Judge Joan Kennedy dismissed a motion on Friday filed by Take-Two and its subsidiary Rockstar Games, which hoped to prevent Lohan from moving forward in the case.

Take-Two had argued that Lohan’s complaint was frivolous and she was suing the company purely for the publicity. In an attempt to discredit Lohan, Take-Two tried to prove the actress has a history of filing misappropriation suits, citing her lost suit against Pitbull over a rap lyric as evidence, and that the lawsuit was filed too late.

However, Judge Kennedy rejected the claim stating,

Defendants have not been able to prove, at this juncture of the litigation, that the republication exception to the one year statute of limitations is not applicable to this case because the intended audiences were the same as those of the original publication and the images consistently remained the same.

Judge Kennedy’s verdict can be read in full here.

In many ways, Lohan’s lawsuit bears of a lot of resemblance to a similar dispute between Activision Blizzard, the makers of the hit “Call of Duty” series, and former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega tried to sue to the company over a character in Call of Duty: Black Ops II, whom he says was based on him, but the lawsuit was thrown out in 2014.

The judge in that case ruled “Noriega’s right of publicity is outweighed by defendants’ First Amendment right to free expression.”

This recent win for Lohan is small victory for the star who’s had her fair share of losses in the courtroom. It’s not hard to see why Lohan would think she and the character bear a resemblance. Still, there’s no telling how the case will play out in the courtroom.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsay Lohan’s Lawsuit Against “Grand Theft Auto V” Will Proceed appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Lindsay Lohan and her mother Dina filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Hannity’s guest commentator Michelle Fields on February 2 over allegations that the mother and daughter did cocaine together.

The alleged statements occurred on a February 4, 2014 Hannity episode where Fields and Hannity discussed celebrity drug overdoses. Fields can be heard saying, “Lindsay Lohan is doing cocaine with her mother.”

Mediaite.com has a clip of the segment, which you can view here.

The Lohans are seeking compensatory and punitive damages and “will continue to suffer severe mental and emotional distress; embarrassment and humiliation; pain and suffering; and economic loss, including loss of income, entertainment and acting contracts, present and future diminished income and economic opportunities,” according to E!.

Moreover, E! further reports that a Fox News spokesperson issued a statement saying, “We will defend this case to the fullest. The remark about which Lindsay and Dina Lohan complain was made on live television by a guest nearly a year ago. We removed the segment from our archives altogether last February and also apologized on-air. At that time, the Lohans did not make any demands for money, and we are surprised they are doing so now.”

A big issue in the case will likely surround when Fox News took down the segment. Nevertheless, I want to talk about a more elementary, and arguably more interesting, area of defamation law that will have an immediate effect on the case’s outcome.

In slander cases, the first question that needs to be asked is if the statement is true or false. If the statement is true here, then Lohan’s case will not succeed.

If the statement is false, victory or defeat in slander cases comes down to various burdens of proof that a potential plaintiff needs to prove. Burdens of proof in a slander case vary depending on whether the plaintiff is a private citizen or public figure. Since the younger Lohan is a global celebrity, she will likely qualify as a public figure, and in particular a general purpose public figure. Being a general purpose public figure, she will have to prove that Fields’ statement was made with knowledge that the statement was false or that Fields said the statement with a reckless disregard to the statement’s falsity. In other words, Lohan will have to prove that Fields made the statement with actual malice.

Lohan’s mother may classify as a different type of public figure, that is, a limited purpose public figure. A limited purpose public figure is someone who is a private citizen who thrusts herself into a public controversy. Limited purpose public figure must also prove that a defamatory statement was made with actual malice. Nevertheless, an argument can be made that Lohan’s mother is a general purpose public figure because of her Living Lohan fame.

Regardless, given the recent multimillion dollar libel verdict in favor of Jesse Ventura, I doubt that Fox News will want to prolong this issue all the way to trial, despite its statement that it will defend the case to the fullest. I will be surprised if the case is not settled out of court.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article referred to Lohan’s suit as libel; the suit is one of defamation.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsay Lohan Sues Fox News Over Cocaine Use Statement appeared first on Law Street.

This summer has been filled with celebrity defamation lawsuits, particularly against video game makers.  Early last month, Lindsay Lohan filed suit against the makers of Grand Theft Auto 5, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and its subsidiary Rockstar Games, claiming that they used Lohan’s likeness without her permission.  Two weeks later, Panama dictator Manuel Noriega filed a legal action against Activision, the maker of Call of Duty: Black Opps II, also claiming that it used Noriega’s image without his permission.

Courtesy of [Chris Alcoran via Flickr]

The book publishing world also felt the sting of defamation lawsuits this summer brought by Hollywood starlet Scarlett Johansson and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.

In May 2013, Scarlett Johansson filed a libel lawsuit against French novelist Gregoire Delacourt for using Johansson’s name and image without her permission and for making false statements about her personal life in his best-selling French novel, The First Thing We Look At. The novel contains a scene in which the female protagonist, a French model who looks identical to Johansson, seeks the help of the lead male protagonist, a mechanic who mistakes the French model for Johansson. The character then has two affairs as Johansson, but her name is later revealed to be Jeanine Foucaprez. Johansson’s lawyer claimed that the two affairs that Jeanine had were untrue, and that the novel depicts Johansson as a sex object. Delacourte argued, however, that Jeanine was meant as a “tribute” to Johansson.

Courtesy of [pop torrent via Flickr]

Last month, a French court ruled in favor of Johansson and ordered Delacourt to pay damages in the amount of 2,500 euros (approximately $3,400) for his demeaning portrayal of Johansson.  Although Delacourte had to pay damages to Johansson, it seems that Delacourte’s publisher, J-C Lattes, won at the end of the day because the court denied Johansson’s attempt at an injunction to stop translations and film adaptations of the novel.  According to the Guardian, Emmanuelle Allibert of J-C Lattes said, “The book has already been translated into German and Italian and there has been interest in translating it into English, but publishers were waiting for the outcome of the case. Now we are open to offers.”

Across the pond in the United States, another defamation case unfolded this summer in federal district court in Minnesota, which book publishers took note of nationwide. Former Navy SEAL, pro wrestler, and Minnesota governor, Jesse Ventura, sued the estate of Chris Kyle for libel in Kyle’s book American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History¸ published by HarperCollins. Kyle’s book contains a chapter entitled, “Punching Out Scuff Face,” which detailed a California bar fight that Kyle had with a celebrity in 2006. Ventura was not mentioned in the book, but Kyle said in interviews after HarperCollins published his book that Ventura was “Scruff Face.”  Ventura acknowledged that he was in the bar with Kyle but did not say that the Navy SEALS “deserved to lose a few,” nor did Kyle punch him in the face as Kyle alleged in his book. The district court in Minnesota favored Ventura and awarded him $1.8 million consisting of $500,000 for damages and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment.

Courtesy of Pesky Librarians via Flickr

Ventura’s award may be surprising due to the higher “actual malice” standard that public figures face in prevailing in libel actions throughout the United States. In libel lawsuits, public figures are placed in two categories: public figures and limited-purpose public figures. Public figures are people who are of great public interest (e.g., President Obama, Michael Jordan, Julia Roberts, etc.). Limited-purpose public figures are people who thrust themselves into a public issue or controversy to try to influence the resolution of that issue (e.g., guests brought on national news networks like MSNBC and Fox News to argue about ways to resolve various issues). In this case, being an ex-governor of Minnesota categorized Ventura as the former. Since Ventura was deemed a public figure, he had to prove that Kyle wrote false statements of fact about him that were made with “actual malice” (i.e.,  Kyle knew the statements he wrote were false, and Kyle deliberately or recklessly disregarded the false statements and published them anyway). Ultimately, the court believed that Ventura overcame the difficult “actual malice” burden of proof and awarded him damages.

The case isn’t quite over, however, as  on August 19, 2014, Kyle’s widow, Taya Kyle, filed a lawsuit in Dallas County Court against her attorney, Christopher Kirkpatrick, for malpractice. She claims that Kirkpatrick was negligent in his legal services and did not explain or disclose to the Kyles the various conflicts of interest that he had.

Ventura’s verdict is disconcerting to U.S. book publishers not only because of Ventura’s million dollar verdict, but because the lawsuit against Kyle’s estate could possibly have been avoided.   Publishers routinely tell authors to edit their respective manuscripts in order to avoid potential libel lawsuits (e.g., referring to Ventura by a different name, “Scruff,” and not mentioning Ventura’s name in the book). Kyle’s publisher, HarperCollins, likely did not bet on Kyle’s admission in an interview that “Scruff” was Ventura. Kyle’s confession serves as a warning to publishers that they cannot be too careful in fact checking and advising authors during the pre- and post-publication processes.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured image courtesy of [Clyde Robinson via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2014 is the Summer of Celebrity Defamation Suits appeared first on Law Street.