Gawker Media Declares Joe Francis Libel-Proof

This is a bit of a stretch, but we admire Gawker Media’s legal department for this response to Joe Francis’ complaint of defamation: “Given his chosen career and his actions to date, it would be hard to say that your client really has any reputation of social probity and standing to damage at this point, now does he?” Well, she may actually have a point! For instance: “In Jackson v. Longcope, a convicted murderer sued the Boston Globe for reporting he had raped and strangled all his victims, and a shoot-out with police occurred during a stolen-car chase.3 Jackson contended he had raped and strangled only some victims, and the car was not stolen. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, dismissed the case.” Still: Joe Francis is often-charged, rarely-convicted. Also, we don’t see what his “chosen career” has to do with it. No one could seriously suggest that being a videographer allows one to be subject to defamatory claims. We would encourage him to go on and see how a defamation suit flies. Purely for amusement value.

A tardy update in Dane et al v Gawker Media: more than two weeks ago now, Marty Singer, who represents the TV stars involved in the year’s most famous non-sex sex tape, objected to Gawker’s motion to strike, calling it a “premature motion.” This was bizarre. Why wouldn’t any defendant file such a motion? It’s the obvious first step. This is just another case of Marty Singer running his mouth off and making elephant-stomping noises. In any event, Gawker’s motion to strike netted them some excellent movement: the copyright claim is off the table. (Dane and Gayheart filed their mark with the Copyright Office after Gawker published their non-sex sex tape.) Writes THR, Esq.:

The ruling doesn’t foreclose the possibility that the gossip website will be enjoined from distributing the sex tape (which is still available on the site) or ordered to pay actual damages. (How Dane and Gayheart prove actual damages is something we’ll have to investigate at a later date.)

Grady Sizemore and Deadspin

Deadspin this morning gets a letter from the Department of Investigations of the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, regarding their publication of naked pictures of baseball player Grady Sizemore:

The photos posted in the article cited below are the property of Grady Sizemore. They were stolen from a personal computer. We’ve begun an investigation and request that you immediately remove Mr. Sizemore’s property from the posting. We also ask that you preserve any records associated with its submission in anticipation of a criminal complaint to be filed with local law enforcement.

Many questions.

1. The MLB’s job is to track down pictures “stolen from” a ballplayer’s personal computer?

2. “Stolen from”?

2.5. One gets the impression that Mr. Boland is not a lawyer.

3. Chilling, though, the request to preserve records, promising as it does a future demand. (Which will never occur.)

“i have seen list of top earner bloggers”

So few updates on Gawker lawsuits this week. But our Google alert for “Nick Denton” brings this choice bit of spam farming today:

Guys today during surf i have seen list of top earner bloggers. This list is usefull for every person who want to earn through blogs. You can get some ideas, good niche and last but not least the spirit

The “site” goes on to claim that something called “Life Hacker” makes as much as “$60,000.” Oes Tsetnocoes (which defines its purpose as “SEO contest”) must have borrowed all this data from February, 2005.

Ask a Second-Year Law Student: Dane et al v. Gawker Media

Rob Arcamona, of Protecting the Source, writes on Mediashift about Gawker and fair use regarding the McSteamy non-sex tape.

Dane and Gayheart appear to have a valid claim against Gawker for copyright infringement. However, Gawker has a formidable defense by way of the “fair use” exception. It’s important to note that the four factors outlined above are not examined in isolation of one another. Instead, courts try to balance them against each other.

In the end, if this case goes to trial, the outcome will likely depend on what Gawker chose to cut from the video. It’s a strange reality that, in the case of sex tapes, what a news organization doesn’t publish is sometimes more important that what it does.

Deadspin Withdraws Untrue Story

Deadspin, to their credit, published a lengthy retraction today of a first-person story. The story, published yesterday, was about how “ASU baseball coach Pat Murphy accosted” the storyteller “at a charity event.” The story’s author also later published his conversation with the source:

ME: Did you lie when you wrote this, Asshole?

ASSHOLE: I did not, but the details are distorted enough to cause issues. It was a funny story that has gone too far.

(19 minutes later)

ASSHOLE: Some information may be false…

(43 minutes later)

ASSHOLE: Drew, Murphy did not say those things to me…

In Deadspin’s retraction, editor AJ Daulerio pegged what was at fault:

The real culprit is the misguided fellow who emailed the bullshit story to begin with and, of course, the very elastic editorial policy employed here by Deadspin which is championed by me.

Commenters seem divided. Wrote one:

I’m asking this as a serious question: what could Deadspin ever do that could cause you to run a real apology? Not a “hey, this wasn’t true but here are all the reasons it doesn’t matter and we shouldn’t be blamed” fake apology, but an actual “We screwed up, and we’re sorry, and we’re going to try to engage our self-critical process in the future”? I’m genuinely asking.

And:

Deadspin should not have to apologize for being a blog that occasionally gets a story wrong. This isn’t an AP news outlet, and if something you read on here gets your panties in a bunch this badly then you should seriously look into re-prioritizing your life.

The only real problem: that Sean Salisbury’s lawyers will be reading with great interest.

Salisbury v. Gawker Media: Now with AJ, Et Al

AJ Daulerio was added as a defendant earlier this week in former ESPN guy Sean Salisbury’s defamation suit against Deadspin. Related: Gawker’s Gaby Darbyshire is showing her foreign barristerness by giving the following comment by email, which the Mckinney Courier-Gazette rudely sic’d: “Besides, the truth is an absolute defence (sic) to libel, and the gory truth will come out during the legal process.” This is America, Ms. Darbyshire. Please speak American. The Gawker VP, of course, gives much better quote, being an actual lawyer and all, than the new blogger-defendant.

When asked if he had an “ax to grind,” Daulerio said, “Yeah. That was one part of it. But I also felt a little safe and justified in doing this stuff.”

*Cringes* Except the problem is Salisbury’s lawyers don’t even know what to do with this: “He expressed a clear purpose and embarrassed people for his own entertainment,” said one of Salisbury’s lawyers, Todd Harlow. Oh, Todd. Even in a Texas District Court, “embarrassment” is not anything like a standard for defamation.