High Five for Borat!

By Anonymous

Donn Zaretsky's Art Law Blog has an interesting piece on litigation surrounding Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. Two of the "participants" in the movie, a couple of inebriated college students from South Carolina, are bringing suit in Los Angeles Superior Court. You can view the complaint here. Incidentally, whoever drafted it needs to work on their spelling. The students, who might I say looked like complete idiots, are alleging that the production crew got them drunk, and then took advantage of their state. They were paid $200 for their participation. They are asserting causes of action for fraud, rescission of contract, false light, appropriation of false likeness, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Borat is a smart cookie, and he made the participants in the film sign a consent form, which Slate has made available here. However, there are a couple of problems with it.

First, the production company is fictional. Though there is a merger clause, there might be a case for fraud, as the participants were lied to, and were apparently given copious amounts of bud lite. Its unlikely that a California court would look very favorably on an argument that the plaintiffs were inebriated, as American courts are generally loathe to nullify contracts on that basis. Second, they were told the documentary would only be shown abroad. In the end, they didn't seem to have been forced to say anything, and its not the kind of thing I personally haven't heard a million times from inebriated fraternity brothers from South Carolina.

Anyway, have a look at the complaint, and let's strike up a discussion regarding whether these two guys have a legal leg to stand on. I do not think they have much of a case. In my view, its not totally frivolous. But the outcome these two poor South Carolinians are hoping for is to get a nice clean settlement. It's no coincidence either that the suit was filed after the movie's opening weekend. The US legal system is much different from the rest of the world in that the loser in an action seldom is required to pay the legal fees of the other party. Incidentally, Borat has earned $111 million worldwide.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Constitutional Right to Female Sexual Pleasure?

By
Although a right to “sexual pleasure” usually does not fare among traditional rights enshrined in constitutions, such a right was nevertheless proposed by a female member of the Ecuadorian parliament when debating a forthcoming new constitution. Reuters report that the idea behind the proposal was to facilitate gender equality and to avoid sexual violence. Ultimately, however, and in spite of this noble cause, the proposal failed.
Read more

Armed Conflicts and the Environment

By
Image
Lawyers and social scientists alike have for a number of years agreed that environmental conditions and scarcity of natural resources have the potential to act as a catalyst for armed conflicts. Such assertions have strengthened the normative link between environmental law and the law governing armed conflicts on a general level. This linking is already recognised, in general, in the area of international law of armed conflicts, which, inter alia, lays down that the methods and means of warfare are not limited; and in particular in the international law of armed conflicts which provides for the protection of the environment during hostilities such as Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva convention. In addition to this “environmental-armed-conflict-law”, considering the state of the environment as a cause of armed conflict has gathered consensus among policy-makers, diplomats and academics. This was most recently recognised when Al Gore, together wi
Read more

Should the Media Shoulder Legally Neutral Obligation?

By
Although many people are heatedly discussing Tibetan issue, Tibetan terrorists or criminals, who infringed on the fundamental human rights of many innocent victims, should be punished according to existing law and the rule-of-law principle. Currently, many websites and newspapers maintained by volunteers exposed some lies and distortions in some western media, which always reported how Tibetan protestors were‘protecting their human rights’, but neglected and scarcely reported expression from Chinese common people. Basically, there is expressive freedom in Western countries and some lies and fabricated stories, especially in some prestigious media are not charged with any legal consequence. From the other perspective, some distorted opinions do arise nationalism within most Chinese people, who reflect totally different from the opinions as to 1989 Tian-an-men Affair. If these reports are prejudicial to China and distorting some truths, should the media freely be forum of helping certain
Read more