Update: Appeals Court Tosses Olivia de Havilland's Lawsuit against FX's "Feud"

[JamesG]

Ryan Murphy & FX in Legal Feud with Olivia de Havilland, Who Is Suing over "Feud"
by Dominic Patten
June 30, 2017


One day before her 101st birthday, Hollywood icon Olivia de Havilland today hit Ryan Murphy and FX with a multi-claim lawsuit over her depiction in "Feud: Bette and Joan".

Seeking a jury trial, sweeping damages and unplugging the potential Emmy-contending show with an injunction, the two-time Oscar winner says her portrayal by Catherine Zeta-Jones in the anthology series damaged her “professional reputation for integrity, honesty, generosity, self-sacrifice and dignity.”



“Olivia De Havilland did not give her permission for FX Defendants to use her name, identity, or likeness in Feud or any of the promotional materials used by the FX Defendants to advertise themselves, their products and services,” states the complaint charging infringement of right of publicity, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment that was filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court.

“FX Defendants knew that they did not obtain Olivia De Havilland’s permission to use her name, identity, or likeness in their documentary or the advertisements of their products and services,” the 33-page filing reads.

FX had no comment on the suit, neither did producers 20th Century Fox TV.







Lawyers for de Havilland say that they will seek to get a speedy trial because of their client’s advanced age. Plus, remember, previous successful legal action by the actress back in the day saw the creation of California’s seven-year contract rule unofficially known as the de Havilland Law – a move that helped bringing down the studio’s stranglehold on performers’ careers.

Throughout "Feud", the Zeta-Jones played de Havilland appears in a mock documentary from 1978 taking abut the relationship between the adversarial Crawford and Davis. She also shows up at the 1963 Oscars as a supporter of Davis’ and makes numerous remarks about the nature of Hollywood and being an actress in the dirty business of show business.



“Olivia De Havilland did not give any such interview and never made these statements about Miss Davis and Miss Crawford or their relationship,” says attorneys for the self-described “living legend and unique role model for multiple generations of actors and fans” in the complaint.

“The interview is fake and the statements attributed to Olivia De Havilland are false,” lawyers Don Howarth, Suzelle Smith and Zoe Tremaye of L.A.’s Howarth & Smith also note. “This interview itself and the statements attributed to Olivia De Havilland are contrary to her public and private image and reputation and have caused her economic, reputational, and emotional damages, including distress, anxiety, and humiliation.”







De Havilland’s lawsuit also references the backstage high drama at the 1963 Oscars.

“At the 1963 Academy Awards, Zeta-Jones’ de Havilland comments to Bette Davis, portrayed by Susan Sarandon, that Oscar host Frank Sinatra must have drunk all the alcohol in the backstage lounge, because they cannot find any.

All of this is untrue and casts Olivia De Havilland in false, hurtful and damaging light.”

http://deadline.com/2017/06/ryan-mur...es-1202122984/

[Alex Cooper]

You go, girl!

[JamesG]

"Feud" Lawsuit Escalates as Fox Refutes Olivia de Havilland’s Legal Move against Ryan Murphy & FX – Update
by Dominic Patten
July 26, 2017


Weeks after Olivia de Havilland first took Ryan Murphy, FX and Fox 21 Television to court for the way she was depicted in the now-Emmy nominated "Feud: Bette and Joan", the studio finally has responded – and it probably isn’t what the 101-year old two-time Oscar winner wanted to hear.

“Our project was a meticulously researched dramatization of the well-documented feud between actresses Bette Davis and Joan Crawford,” Fox 21 said Wednesday morning, just hours after de Havilland sought to have the matter brought to trial by the fall due to her advanced age.



“The law on this is very clear: No permissions of any kind were required in order to tell the tale. Docudramas, such as this one, are original narrative works, based on real, verifiable facts and events. By the logic of Ms. de Havilland’s attorneys, no producer would be able to tell any stories about famous people, living or dead, without their consent.

We respectfully disagree with Ms. de Havilland’s objections to her portrayal, and we stand by the content, including her portrayal, and will vigorously defend this project.”




A hearing on de Havilland’s motion for a faster trial start is scheduled for September 13 – just four days before the 69th Primetime Emmys, where "Feud" is up for 10 of its total of 18 nominations.

http://deadline.com/2017/07/olivia-d...ys-1202136007/

[robyrob]

shouldn't she have filed injunctions before the series aired?

is she suing for damages including the impact on her future earnings?

I wounder if FOX settles - after they milk this lawsuit for all the publicity they can get out of it; they could probably "arrange" for her and CZJ to be in the same place-same time and have a cat fight break out.

[JamesG]

Ryan Murphy on "Feud" Suit Dismissal: “A Great Day for Artistic Expression”
by Erik Pedersen
March 26, 2018


"Feud: Bette and Joan" executive producer Ryan Murphy has weighed in on the dismissal of Olivia de Havilland’s defamation lawsuit over the FX series, calling it “a great day for artistic expression.”

“The reversal is a victory for the creative community, and the First Amendment,” he said in a statement. “Today’s victory gives all creators the breathing room necessary to continue to tell important historical stories inspired by true events. Most of all, it’s a great day for artistic expression and a reminder of how precious our freedom remains.”




The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals ruled threw out the lawsuit today, saying that Catherine Zeta-Jones’s portrayal of the Oscar-winning actress in the program “is not highly offensive to a reasonable person as a matter of law.”

De Havilland’s lawsuit claimed that the portrayal damaged her “professional reputation for integrity, honesty, generosity, self-sacrifice and dignity.”







The Motion Picture Association of America also stood firmly behind the Appeals Court ruling.

“The MPAA is proud to have joined with our colleagues at Netflix to submit an amicus brief to the Court of Appeal, warning that upholding the Superior Court’s decision would cause both artistic freedom and public discourse to suffer,” said MPAA chairman/CEO Charles Rivkin.

“The Court of Appeal’s opinion will safeguard the right of filmmakers to tell stories that entertain, inspire, and inform audiences around the world.”



He added, “Today’s decision represents a major legal victory for filmmakers and creators of all kinds, re-affirming their First Amendment right to tell stories about and inspired by real people and events in genres including docudramas, biopics, historical fiction, and documentaries.

It’s this right that has allowed filmmakers to make movies from Citizen Kane to The Devil Wears Prada to Primary Colors to The Social Network to Hidden Figures, among countless others.”

http://deadline.com/2018/03/ryan-mur...on-1202353745/