I was threatened with legal action on Facebook

[Draco77]

I'm an artist in Big Spring, Texas, who has recently experienced not only demands to remove completely innocuous commemorative artwork from my personal Facebook page, but a threat of legal action if I refuse to comply. They claim the commemorative artwork is degrading & hurtful to them & their deceased relative, whom I was acquainted with. There is nothing degrading about the art & I have explained why the individual in the artwork is portrayed, & they have not acknowledged it. They are making self righteous demands under the guise of a request for sensitivity. I have told them repeatedly that I will not tolerate attempted policing of my personal page & that they are free to hide, unfollow, or ignore & scroll, but they refuse to pay it any mind.

The people in question are an entire family, or most of them & I have already had to block four of them. I reported one of them & saved as many messages & comments as I could, but a few of them were unfortunately lost, one because I blocked them prior to saving the comment, not knowing the comment would no longer appear on my end after blocking, if the comment was on someone else's page, & the other was a response to a post in a group, so once things escalated, the moderators removed the entire post. I was away as this happened. This may also tie into this taking place in a more socially conservative town, where artists must walk on eggshells ideologically, & face lack of opportunity, partially to do with that. I'm wondering what I should do to solve this?

 

[justalayman]

unless the person making the demand the legal representative of the estate, tell them to get lost.


If they are the legal representative of the estate the only issue that might come into play is whether the decedents publicity rights are an issue. Was this a famous person?


They have no right to deme not be removed for the claims you have stated.

Actually given it is your Facebook page you can prevent them from viewing it and that is exactly what I would do.

 

[Draco77]

No, it wasn't anyone famous, just a local business man I was acquainted with. This was a demand from one of the relatives, no a legal representative. As I said, I have blocked four of them who have given me trouble over this, & put the word out to them that they are all free to hide, unfollow, or ignore & scroll.

 

[quincy]

... They claim the commemorative artwork is degrading & hurtful to them & their deceased relative, whom I was acquainted with. ...

First, you do not need to start several threads with the same legal questions and concerns. It is easier for the forum members to have all related-questions kept in a single thread because it prevents duplicate answers and it is just plain confusing to have the same threads scattered about the forum. Duplicate threads are deleted for this reason.

Your "commemorative" art piece would need to be viewed to see if the relatives of the deceased have a legitimate cause of action. In Texas, and in a handful of other states, it is against the law to defame the dead or "blacken the memory of" the deceased. Here is a link to the law: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.73.htm

Also, if what is expressed about a deceased person defames relatives through implication, a lawsuit filed by the defamed relative(s) could be supported.

An example: Let's say you draw a picture of a deceased person and in the drawing you show (or imply) that the person was a member of the KKK. The person was not a member of the KKK. The false picture can not only blacken the person's memory but can also reflect in a defamatory way on the relatives of the person.

I suggest you remove your artwork from its place online until an attorney can review it. A "defaming the dead" lawsuit would be rare but that doesn't mean one cannot be pursued against you.

 

[Draco77]

I posted the duplicate with a bit of haste, worrying about whether I posted it in the correct category, & for that, I apologize.

The artwork in question is completely innocuous, & their hangups about how he is portrayed stems from their personal hangups, not anything defamatory about the way he is depicted. I have explained to them, the artistic reasoning behind why he is portrayed in the artwork, & they seemingly haven't taken it into consideration.

Those Texas state laws seemingly border on undermining freedom of speech IMHO. What if an artist in Texas portrays a deceased person the least bit differently as a philosophical & hypothetical what if scenario, & not simply to disrespect the dead & harass those who respect that person in a way that is different than the way the artist respects the deceased person in question?

If one arrogant family with no understanding of atypical or differing opinions & alternative methods for honoring the deceased, can potentially police what an artist, who honestly meant no harm, can post on their personal page, & refuse to handle it rationally by way of the features provided by Facebook, then what is stopping more powerful entities from fishing for a reason to do the same?

Just a thought

I have temporarily hide the artwork in question on my timeline.

 

[quincy]

I posted the duplicate with a bit of haste, worrying about whether I posted it in the correct category, & for that, I apologize.

Not a problem.

The artwork in question is completely innocuous, & their hangups about how he is portrayed stems from their personal hangups, not anything defamatory about the way he is depicted. I have explained to them, the artistic reasoning behind why he is portrayed in the artwork, & they seemingly haven't taken it into consideration.

Without knowing more and without seeing how you portrayed the deceased man in your artwork, I cannot really comment on it or tell you if the family members could have a legitimate legal concern.

Those Texas state laws seemingly border on undermining freedom of speech IMHO.

Facts really matter but, yes, freedom of expression would more than likely play into any defense. The laws that address defaming the dead are rarely used in the states that still have them - but what these laws can do is allow for a cause of action where none might otherwise exist.

If you wish to read the opinions of different courts (including the US Supreme Court) in cases that address the preservation of rights and reputations of the deceased, I will cite and provide links to some of them later.

What if an artist in Texas portrays a deceased person the least bit differently as a philosophical & hypothetical what if scenario, & not simply to disrespect the dead & harass those who respect that person in a way that is different than the way the artist respects the deceased person in question?

If one arrogant family with no understanding for atypical or differing opinions & alternative methods for honoring the deceased, can potentially police what an artist, who honestly meant no harm, can post on their personal page, & refuse to handle it rationally by way of the features provided by Facebook, then what is stopping more powerful entities from fishing for a reason to do the same?

Just a thought.

There is nothing that can prevent an artist/author from creating what he wants to create. There is also nothing that can prevent someone from suing over what is created by the artist/author. Although lawsuits can be fashioned from very little, suits with no merit at all tend to be dismissed rather quickly.

I have temporarily hide the artwork in question on my timeline.

Again, because I have not seen your artwork, I cannot tell you if the depiction of the deceased could lead to a successful lawsuit by the family of the deceased. I don't know if "hiding" the work is necessary, therefore, but it might prevent the family from harassing you.

 

[Draco77]

I'm not seeing a way to insert images, so I'll describe them. This all started with an innocent comment about a drawing idea depicting the deceased person in joke Christmas attire, appearing as he did when he was a teenager for personal reasons, smiling, while holding a Christmas cookie shaped like a logo that tied into something he liked. As far as I know, depicting someone in joke Christmas attire is not dehumanizing, as one of them claimed, & the deceased individual had a good sense of humor, so I was under the impression that this would not be considered demeaning. I see it as heartfelt playful commemoration.

The remainder of the art, which was posted without incident months or roughly a year ago, is of two drawings. One, is simply him as a teenager, standing there, holding his hand out. Above that hand, is a Puma logo. Originally, it was a peace sign-heart image. I was on the fence about editing the image, & this situation motivated me to go through with the edits, to which I have heard no comments about. The other edits are an image of our hometown emblem, the phrase "tough dude" in a psychedelic font, with 70's style stars above it. Below that, is a stylized silhouette like image of him standing there, with his hand in one pocket. Below his arm, on the opposite side, is a bust view of him smiling, in the same likeness as the main drawing. He has a necklace with a crystal shard pendant, which I put there for personal reasons I have not explained yet. That may be part of their problem, since he never wore anything like that, as far as I know. If it is one of their complaints, it may be because he & they are Christians & crystals are associated with New Age. I will admit that I do identify partially with New Age, but I did not place that there as a middle finger to Christianity. I placed it there for personal spiritual reasons that have little to do with the subject of the drawing. The only aspect of my spiritual beliefs that tie into the placement of the necklace on a commemorative drawing of a deceased person, despite them having different spiritual beliefs, is that its a symbol of him now no longer suffering(he died of cancer), & is now being in the peaceful afterlife. Its simply acknowledging him being in the afterlife according to my beliefs. I depicted him in his teenage likeness because he experienced the 70's as a teenager, & I'm fascinated with the pop culture of that era. Also, he had nostalgia for the 70's, & I feel that if there was one way we could have related, it would have been through this. I regret not getting to interact with him more often.

The other drawing, is not even of him. It is of an anthropomorphic character who has typical 70's fashion & badass attributes, & is a vigilante who is a guardian of local history & retro pop culture & stops vandals & bigots from damaging or destroying history & prevents bigots from causing trouble. The character's facial features & hairstyle are modeled after the deceased individual's 70's teenage appearance. The anthropomorphic character is part of a comic & animated film series idea I have, where culturally, our hometown is still in the 70's. I utilized the deceased individual's teenage likeness as a model for this character, because he owned two historic buildings in our hometown, & properly maintained them, & cared about them. We have lost several historic buildings in our town, mostly due to negligence & lack of concern. Basing the character's features on the era of his life that I feel we could have related, he had nostalgia for, & applying his teenage features to a character who protects local history from vandals as a nod to him properly maintaining his historic properties is a tribute to him. They may have a problem with things regarded as unusual, like anthro art & may have a problem with with this rough character having any association with him.

I do realize I have the right to create what I want to create, that's why I'm bothering to make an attempt to protect myself, rather than completely caving to their demands.

Yes, please provide the links. Thanks

 

[quincy]

I'm not seeing a way to insert images, so I'll describe them. This all started with an innocent comment about a drawing idea depicting the deceased person in joke Christmas attire, appearing as he did when he was a teenager for personal reasons, smiling, while holding a Christmas cookie shaped like a logo that tied into something he liked. As far as I know, depicting someone in joke Christmas attire is not dehumanizing, as one of them claimed, & the deceased individual had a good sense of humor, so I was under the impression that this would not be considered demeaning. I see it as heartfelt playful commemoration.

The remainder of the art, which was posted without incident months or roughly a year ago, is of two drawings. One, is simply him as a teenager, standing there, holding his hand out. Above that hand, is a Puma logo. Originally, it was a peace sign-heart image. I was on the fence about editing the image, & this situation motivated me to go through with the edits, to which I have heard no comments about. The other edits are an image of our hometown emblem, the phrase "tough dude" in a psychedelic font, with 70's style stars above it. Below that, is a stylized silhouette like image of him standing there, with his hand in one pocket. Below his arm, on the opposite side, is a bust view of him smiling, in the same likeness as the main drawing. He has a necklace with a crystal shard pendant, which I put there for personal reasons I have not explained yet. That may be part of their problem, since he never wore anything like that, as far as I know. If it is one of their complaints, it may be because he & they are Christians & crystals are associated with New Age. I will admit that I do identify partially with New Age, but I did not place that there as a middle finger to Christianity. I placed it there for personal spiritual reasons that have little to do with the subject of the drawing. The only aspect of my spiritual beliefs that tie into the placement of the necklace on a commemorative drawing of a deceased person, despite them having different spiritual beliefs, is that its a symbol of him now no longer suffering(he died of cancer), & is now being in the peaceful afterlife. Its simply acknowledging him being in the afterlife according to my beliefs. I depicted him in his teenage likeness because he experienced the 70's as a teenager, & I'm fascinated with the pop culture of that era. Also, he had nostalgia for the 70's, & I feel that if there was one way we could have related, it would have been through this. I regret not getting to interact with him more often.

The other drawing, is not even of him. It is of an anthropomorphic character who has typical 70's fashion & badass attributes, & is a vigilante who is a guardian of local history & retro pop culture & stops vandals & bigots from damaging or destroying history & prevents bigots from causing trouble. The character's facial features & hairstyle are modeled after the deceased individual's 70's teenage appearance. The anthropomorphic character is part of a comic & animated film series idea I have, where culturally, our hometown is still in the 70's. I utilized the deceased individual's teenage likeness as a model for this character, because he owned two historic buildings in our hometown, & properly maintained them, & cared about them. We have lost several historic buildings in our town, mostly due to negligence & lack of concern. Basing the character's features on the era of his life that I feel we could have related, he had nostalgia for, & applying his teenage features to a character who protects local history from vandals as a nod to him properly maintaining his historic properties is a tribute to him. They may have a problem with things regarded as unusual, like anthro art & may have a problem with with this rough character having any association with him.

I do realize I have the right to create what I want to create, that's why I'm bothering to make an attempt to protect myself, rather than completely caving to their demands.

Yes, please provide the links. Thanks

I am ending a long night and my ability to envision your art work has failed. This site does not allow for the posting of images, either, so you will probably want to see an attorney in your area for a personal review if you want an assessment of your work.

Based on what I understand of what you said and described, though, I am not seeing much that can support a suit filed by the relatives of the deceased. The family members would have to be identified or referred to in some way in your artwork, or the deceased's business (if they have an economic interest in it) would have to be depicted in some way and disparaged. I see no economic or reputational injury upon which damages could be awarded.

But, background information is important in understanding if anything in your artwork could lead the family to a successful suit, and I have little to no background information to work with.

After reading your descriptions, I will provide you with only two cases that help support a defense, if the family files suit against you. I could provide cases that might help the family members if they move ahead with a lawsuit - but I am thinking they are just being difficult or overly sensitive and you are unlikely to be sued.

Keys v. Interstate Circuit, Inc., 468 SW 2d 485, Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District, 1971: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9558323553844669177&q=defaming+the+dead&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44,60

The Court said: "It is now a settled law that in order for one to maintain an action for defamation, he must be the particular person with reference to whom the defamatory statements were made."

Hurlbut v. Gulf Atlantic Life Ins. Co, 749 SW 2d 762, Texas Supreme Court 1987: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=801212665451429603&q=Texas+business+disparagement&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006

The Court said: "The action for defamation is to protect the personal reputation of the injured party, whereas the action for injurious falsehood or business disparagement is to protect the economic interests of the injured party against pecuniary loss."

Good luck.

 

[Draco77]

Thanks. Sorry if my detailed gabbing wore your eyes out.

Regarding the background information? I barely know them & they have said very little to explain exactly why they think the artwork is disrespectful. The only specifics that were said was regarding the comedic concept that set this entire thing off, claiming that it was dehumanizing & saying he is not a reindeer(one idea involved antlers & a Rudolf nose), he is a human being, & one relative claiming he wouldn't have wanted to be drawn like that, however, I find that difficult to believe. Even if he did, he likely would have handle it better. Other than that, they have given no specifics as to why they feel the artwork is dehumanizing.

 

[quincy]

Thanks. Sorry if my detailed gabbing wore your eyes out.

Your details were appreciated, Draco77. My eyes just had a very long day and night.

Regarding the background information? I barely know them & they have said very little to explain exactly why they think the artwork is disrespectful. The only specifics that were said was regarding the comedic concept that set this entire thing off, claiming that it was dehumanizing & saying he is not a reindeer(one idea involved antlers & a Rudolf nose), he is a human being, & one relative claiming he wouldn't have wanted to be drawn like that, however, I find that difficult to believe. Even if he did, he likely would have handle it better. Other than that, they have given no specifics as to why they feel the artwork is dehumanizing.

Technically, if you depicted the business man as a reindeer, you WERE dehumanizing him.

But, since he is not around to say how he likes being characterized that way and, because the family members have apparently not shown any personal or economic injury as a result of your artwork being displayed, I do not see a supportable lawsuit. Perhaps you weren't as sensitive to their grief as they might hope but that alone is not legally actionable.

Good luck.

 

[Draco77]

I saw the , but in all seriousness, the reindeer concept was one of the ones involving joke Christmas attire, so he still would have been human, but I see what you meant.

Thanks for the advice & wishing me good luck.

 

[quincy]

I saw the , but in all seriousness, the reindeer concept was one of the ones involving joke Christmas attire, so he still would have been human, but I see what you meant.

Thanks for the advice & wishing me good luck.

You're welcome, Draco77.

If the family continues to cause you difficulty, I recommend you speak to an attorney in your area for a personal review and a discussion of the legal options available to you.

 

[Draco77]

It was brought to my attention that if the name of the individual is in the artwork then the relatives may have a case. I forgot to mention his name is in the artwork. Now what?

On a related not, due to it involving the same family, I was also told basically that bashing a business over the way they decide to manage it could get me into legal trouble. I suppose the person that told me this was referring to defamation of character or slander, but everything I said was things that would be interpreted as opinion & speculation, not facts or lies that could harm their reputation, then again, if their behavior towards me is anything to go by, they are well on their way to ruining their reputation, but that's just my opinion, & not one I mentioned in the public post. If its something I'm passionate about or otherwise feel strongly about that involves explaining my side of a situation & negotiation, I'm polite & diplomatic until they get rude & condescending. If it is not something that involves explaining my side of a situation & negotiation, & its something I'm passionate about or otherwise feel strongly about, I'm usually more blunt & snarky than some like.

 

[quincy]

It was brought to my attention that if the name of the individual is in the artwork then the relatives may have a case. I forgot to mention his name is in the artwork. Now what?

Who brought this to your attention? Using the name of a person would be no different than using an image of the person. I think we covered using an image of your friend, right?

On a related not, due to it involving the same family, I was also told basically that bashing a business over the way they decide to manage it could get me into legal trouble. I suppose the person that told me this was referring to defamation of character or slander, but everything I said was things that would be interpreted as opinion & speculation, not facts or lies that could harm their reputation, then again, if their behavior towards me is anything to go by, they are well on their way to ruining their reputation, but that's just my opinion, & not one I mentioned in the public post. If its something I'm passionate about or otherwise feel strongly about that involves explaining my side of a situation & negotiation, I'm polite & diplomatic until they get rude & condescending. If it is not something that involves explaining my side of a situation & negotiation, & its something I'm passionate about or otherwise feel strongly about, I'm usually more blunt & snarky than some like.

If the family is claiming business disparagement, you will probably have to have your artwork personally reviewed by an attorney in your area to see if there is any merit to their claims.

I am sorry to hear you are still having difficulty with the same family. Good luck.

 

[Draco77]

Who brought this to your attention? Using the name of a person would be no different than using an image of the person. I think we covered using an image of your friend, right?



If the family is claiming business disparagement, you will probably have to have your artwork personally reviewed by an attorney in your area to see if there is any merit to their claims.

I am sorry to hear you are still having difficulty with the same family. Good luck.

I had never heard of the person's name in the work being grounds for litigation, especially when you said it would be no different then an image of them, & yes, we did cover the image. I just wanted to stay on the safe side, since laws tend to have little specifications that the person may have overlooked or misinterpreted. I have not heard from the family personally, but its evident that the person that told me that may be interacting with them, since she relayed information to me, suggesting she obtained new information from them that may be regarding another piece of my artwork that ties into commemorating the deceased individual/friend that the family never mentioned to me specifically. It was only vaguely alluded to. This only happened several minutes ago & she has not responded to me about whether or not that was what she was referring to, where she said something that suggests she may be interacting with them regarding this. Also, this person resurrected this when we were initially discussing something that has little or nothing to do with this.