October 29. 2019

Bobby Brown

R&B singer Bobby Brown sued the U.S. based Showtime network and Britain's BBC network regarding footage of himself and his late daughter, Bobbi Kristina Brown, that was used in a documentary, "Whitney: Can I Be Me" without his consent or that of his child's estate. Brown's attorney filed the case in California, where he is a resident, alleging violations of the federal Lanham Act, and the right of publicity, regarding image rights. The lawsuit also alleges tortious interference, regarding third parties interfering in contracts and business deals. 

However, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the case. The judge's ruling is titled "Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint." The judge was not of the belief the U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the BBC, which is based in Britain and headquartered in its lovely capital, London. The BBC is owned by the British government and is currently in disfavor with Britons for its biased political coverage and yearly television license fee the public wants abolished.

I disagree with the judge's assertion on jurisdiction in two ways. The BBC has an office in America located in New York. The BBC is legally operating in America as BBC Worldwide Americas, Inc and registered with the State of New York.

The second way I disagree with the judge's ruling on this count regarding the Bobby Brown lawsuit is there are cases in Florida, where Cuban-Americans have sued the government of Cuba and entities on the island, and U.S. judges rendered judgments in the favor of the Plaintiffs in Miami. Therefore, it can be said Brown has legal standing to do the same.

The BBC co-produced a documentary that aired in America, making them and co-producer, Showtime, liable for damages in America. The BBC also aired the documentary in Britain, which also makes them liable in the United Kingdom, if Brown can show he owns the rights to the previously unreleased footage from his reality show "Being Bobby Brown" that was used in "Whitney: Can I Be Me."

Brown has a right to be angry. It is 30-minutes of never before seen footage from his show "Being Bobby Brown." What if he wanted to use that footage of himself and his daughter. It was not the place of Showtime or the BBC to exploit him and his deceased child in this manner, regarding footage he states he never agreed to license to them.

Judge McMahon stated that under California law the filmmakers did not need his permission, but Brown is stating they used footage he has rights in. The judge ruled, "It is true that producers of films and television programs often enter into agreements with individuals portrayed in those works for a variety of reasons, including obtaining access to the person's recollections or 'story' the producers would not otherwise have, or a desire to avoid litigation for payment of a reasonable fee. But no acquisition agreement is required where First Amendment concerns are implicated. The cases on which Plaintiffs rely in their opposition memorandum are inapposite. Each of them involves the misappropriation of a celebrity's persona, likeness and/or voice for use in commercial advertisements."

Brown clearly maintained some rights to the "Being Bobby Brown" reality show based on his contention he did not authorize the previously unreleased footage to be used. Brown's lawsuit states he signed an agreement with Bravo, who distributed "Being Bobby Brown" and the contract stipulates, "Both parties shall keep confidential the Project [the reality television program] and any ideas, concepts, stories plots [sic], themes or other material related to the Project unless express written consent is provided by the parties." That clearly implies he has rights to how the footage is used.

The makers of "Whitney: Can I Be Me" asked him to be interviewed for the documentary, but he declined. So, they decided to work around him, even using the "Being Bobby Brown" footage without his consent. That is unethical. It's clear they needed something new for the documentary, as so much has been said and done on the subject matter, and as Whitney is deceased, the filmmaker had trouble finding new angles and material on her life story.

It is not unlawful to make a documentary about a subject without their consent, as it is covered by free speech. However, it is unlawful to use their private intellectual property or sizeable amounts of their publicly released copyrights without their consent.

Once again, Brown and Bravo would have rights regarding how their footage is used. One also cannot claim "fair use" on unseen or unpublished materials in commercial cases. It's not like one using a clip of a Bobby Brown or Whitney Houston music video that has been released by the copyright owners (the record labels and or the artists) to discuss music or the singers. The makers of "Whitney: Can I Be Me" took a valuable commodity, unreleased footage and re-copyrighted it in their name as a part of their project. You simply can't do that without the consent of the people/entities who own the rights to the item. In doing so, you have committed a crime, for commercial use and financial profit.

Billboard magazine reported, "Brown also pled contract and tortious interference claims premised on his deals for the Bravo reality series Being Bobby Brown. He says unauthorized footage from that series wound up in the Whitney Houston documentary despite contractual restrictions. Those claims under state law don't immediately fail on the merits, but the federal judge declines to exercise jurisdiction over them. Brown is free to pursue them in a state court."

A third party regarding the production of "Being Bobby Brown" sold the rights to the previously unseen footage, not Bravo, who aired the program in 2005. Brown's lawsuit points the finger at Tracey Baker-Simmons and Wanda Shelley, owners of the dissolved B2 production company, "Who are television producers and Georgia residents, and were the executive producers of the reality television program 'Being Bobby Brown.'"

Brown's name and production company appear in the credits of "Whitney: Can I Be Me" which in some part gives the appearance he had a hand in making the documentary, when he contends he had nothing to do with it and rejected their request for his participation. Brown's name and that of his late daughter also appear in promotional items regarding the documentary film.

Judge McMahon ruled "For the reason set forth below, BBC's motion to dismiss is granted. Defendants motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. However, because the only federal crime in the Complaint is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counts that remain."

It sounds like Judge McMahon didn't want to hear the case, despite the fact it has triable elements. That's not what the taxpayers pay her salary for her to do. It was a copout and violation of Brown's rights, and that of his daughter, who died a violent death at Nick Gordon's hands. Judge McMahon needs to resign.

Furthermore, how is it Judge McMahon is attempting to force a litigant into state court, when as a rule of law, Lanham Act violations are supposed to be tried in federal court. It is a federal statute. Lanham Act violations are federal crimes. That makes it a federal claim. There is nowhere else Brown can go with those elements of the case in America, but federal court. If he takes it to state court with the Lanham Act count, the state court judge is supposed to tell Brown in a ruling that they cannot hear federal claims in said venue.

More and more, people are seeing this type of behavior pouring from federal judges, who have a six-figure job for life (unless impeached) and simply can't be bothered to do their jobs. They then force litigants to state court, which some federal judges deem beneath them. Congress needs to sort that. I predict Congress will pass new laws concerning judges and how cases are heard.

Currently, America has publicly elected state judges, some of whom have a 2,000 to 3,000 caseload, because federal judges can't be bothered to hear cases that fall under their jurisdiction and 99% of the time rule in favor of rich corporations. This type of behavior is not happening in other nations and it is attracting massive public attention, as it looks very corrupt.

STORY SOURCE

Whitney Houston Showtime Doc Doesn't Need Bobby Brown's Consent, Judge Rules

8/5/2019 - In the course of producing dramatized versions of real events, producers often make "life rights agreements" with subjects. But once again, while these producers may prefer the peace of mind of not being sued and gaining the cooperation of those featured, there's really no such thing as "life rights."

The reminder comes in a lawsuit brought by Bobby Brown and his daughter's estate against Showtime and BBC over a Whitney Houston documentary titled Can I Be Me? In a complaint in New York federal court, the Browns objected to footage that was used without their consent. They claimed a violation of their right of publicity as well as the Lanham Act.

In a decision Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon dismisses the lawsuit. After a lengthy discussion over whether the court has jurisdiction over BBC (she ultimately rules no), McMahon gets to the right of publicity claims and the defendants' First Amendment arguments... 

 https://www.billboard.com

RELATED ARTICLES

Whitney Houston On The Brink

Bobby Brown Is Breaking Down