libel

[timo]

california;does the use of nicknames qualify as libel?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Be more specific. What's the whole story ? What's the situation ?

IAAL

 

[HomeGuru]

Maybe his is Richard Head and he was sent a letter addressed to Mr. Dick Head.

 

[timo]

libel again

california;My nickname has been used in an online publication and is scheduled to be published in a book due out in Sept.
I am very troubled by the context. My and my spouse's nicknames are very well known. A huge amount of people know that this is us in the story. I want to know if I have any rights to demand that the names be changed before the book is released. I would also like the names changed on the website and for my picture to be removed.
Sorry that you think I am a dickhead, I was trying to be short and to the subject. I thought that I asked a simple yes or no question...
Thank you. Timo

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

No one thinks you're a "Dick Head". HomeGuru was merely trying to come up with a possible, libelous, scenario for your post, because no scenario was stated.

Nothing is slanderous or libelous until it's spoken or written, and then it must be said or written with a complete lack of truth, and with the knowledge of it's falsity. If there's any truth to the use of your nickname with a particular situation, then it's "fair game".

You must also suffer damages as a result.

Below is the controlling California Statute.

IAAL


CALIFORNIA CODES
CIVIL CODE
SECTION 3344

3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products,
merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or
soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services,
without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the
prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for
any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result
thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the
person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party
or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty
dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a
result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized
use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account
in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the
injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the
gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated
this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses.
Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties.
The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be
entitled to attorney's fees and costs.
(b) As used in this section, "photograph" means any photograph or
photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live
television transmission, of any person, such that the person is
readily identifiable.
(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a
photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can
reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is
the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.
(2) If the photograph includes more than one person so
identifiable, then the person or persons complaining of the use shall
be represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a
definable group represented in the photograph. A definable group
includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at
any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the
audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a
baseball team.
(3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as
members of a definable group if they are represented in the
photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the
photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in
any manner.
(c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person
using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or
other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only
incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in
which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption
affecting the burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain
the consent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee's
photograph or likeness.
(d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news,
public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political
campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required
under subdivision (a).
(e) The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness
in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent
is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material
containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid
advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not
the use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or
likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or
with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent
is required under subdivision (a).
(f) Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees
of any medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to,
newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations,
cable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any
advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is
published or disseminated, unless it is established that such owners
or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person's
name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this
section.
(g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and
shall be in addition to any others provided for by law.

 

[timo]

legal or not?

Thank you so much for the response.
I am still confused. In the work of fiction, I and my wife are presented to the public with our nicknames. I am portrayed as a person who offers alcohol to a driver behind the wheel of a car. My wife is portrayed as a flagrant drug user who flaunts and offers her body to the author.
The answer I am seeking is whether or not I can demand the removal of our "names" from the work. I am not sure whether or not the use of our nicknames is allowed without our consent. The work was brought to our attention by unrelated co-workers and we are currently having to explain ourselves to all sorts of people that we come across. This makes us wonder what our rights may be. We do not want to be portrayed in this manner. Do we have any say in the matter?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Unless you have an "especially distinctive" nickname, and one that can ONLY be characterized as being you, then you have no cause of action.

For example, everyone knows who "Huggy Bear" is from Starsky and Hutch, or Joe "Banana" Bonono from the Giancana Crime Family in New York.

Let's work it from this angle - - what are your nicknames ?

IAAL

[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 07-16-2001 at 02:39 AM]

 

[HomeGuru]

Yeah, let's get down to the bottom of things so we know what you talkin bout.