Trump is suing over the interview tapes where Trump admitted having classified Kim Jong Un letters.
Infuriatingly, CNN does not link to the filing.
This should be amusing. IANAL, and have only skimmed the filing, but I doubt this is going to go Trump’s way. I see he filed in the Northern District of Florida, not the Southern District where he usually files.
Could Biden declassify those letters so that we could all read a true to life bromance exchange?
I imagine he’ll give it some thought.
I’ve been wondering just how much of a chance in hell Trump has here. It seems to be a pretty straightforward breach of contract claim - that Woodward didn’t have the contractual right to profit off of these tapes.
Let’s assume the contract with the publisher neither explicitly allows nor forbids him from using the raw audio however he wants. Past that, what are the merits of Trump’s case?
It seems like this might boil down to “a sitting president who is talking into a microphone on the record has no expectation of privacy.”
It’s not about expectation of privacy. He’s talking to a reporter. It’s using his audio without his permission for commercial purposes that might be an issue. It’s Trump’s right of publicity. Here’s one law firm’s take on the general issue (not this case)
Does POTUS have a right of publicity, or is it outweighed by the public interest? Your source specifies that an individual’s right of publicity isn’t trumped (heh) by newsworthy events.
Here’s an interesting website which lists the outcomes of all Trump’s lawsuits (defendant and plaintiff) over the past thirty years, all 4, 095 of them and counting. The only ones he seems to win regularly are collecting casino gambling debts.
I don’t know. I suppose he’d have the right for some things. You couldn’t put his face on a cereal box without his consent, for example. It’s hard to imagine he can protect what he told a reporter, but it’s not my area of the law.
I am not a lawyer, but I’m more confident that the lawyers of Simon & Schuster properly vetted the publication than I am that Trump’s lawyers correctly analyzed the legalities.
That’s a safe bet. They have to deal with issues like this all the time, and wouldn’t overlook the requirements.
Oh yeah, for sure. That’s why I asked questions under the assumption that the contract wasn’t airtight. I’m sure this is going nowhere fast.
First, right of publicity is a state law matter. Not all states have a right of publicity.
Second, right of publicity has to do with commercial misappropriation of a person’s likeness, image, name, or other aspect of es identity. It’s essentially an endorsement or sponsorship question.
Right of publicity is not going to apply to Woodward’s releas of interview tapes, because things Trump said in an interview are inherently matters of information and public affairs at that. They are not matters of Woodward’s benefitting from an implication that his commercial product is endorsed by Trump.
I remember Woodward revealing a few months ago that Trump said something incriminating on the record, then told Woodward “don’t tell anyone I told you that.” Maybe Trump thinks that’s legally binding somehow?
If right of publicity applied here, wouldn’t it apply any time any news organization quoted anyone at any length? After all, most news organizations are for-profit entities, and their business model is in large part to make money by quoting people.
So, as I said in my prior post in this thread, this kind of thing has nothing to do with the right of publicity. The right of publicity has to do with commercial misappropriation of someone’s identity. That is, using someone’s name, likeness, image or other characteristics to imply endorsement. It has nothing to do with reporting facts about someone, such as a report describing what E did or something E said.
The right of publicity does not give you control over all mentions of your name. It only allows you to prevent commercial misappropriation of your identity. For example, if I were to use a picture of Brad Pitt as the logo for my new brand of wine, Brad Pitt Vineries Wine, and I did not have Brad Pitt’s permission to do that, that is commercial misappropriation of Brad Pitt’s identity.
As a brewer used Leonard Nimoy’s likeness with droopy ears on a billboard to sell beer. (It makes your ears stand up.)
Sure–but I’m unclear whether Trump is claiming it has to do with the right of publicity. If he’s not, if he’s just claiming some sort of copyright infringement, I believe that everything I said about the news media also applies.
So just now Trump realizes what he says can be used against him?
He’s gone so long using snowblowing speech, he never felt accountable for constantly lying. He’s now wanting to displace blame for his self-incrimination.
I believe Tan the Conman is actually aware of that his blathering can be used against him. That’s why he just took the Fifth about eleventy-million times, after condeming people, other people, who have taken the Fifth.
I never assume the purpose of these suits is to actually stop anyone. It’s always just a delay tactic. So my question then is What will this delay? What can he accomplish with the suit alone, regardless of whether he wins it?