Can I be threatened with libel and/or slander if...

[arcanemachinist]

Is this libel and/or slander?

I live in Virginia and the contract in question was allegedly executed in VA as well.

The reason why this involves a contract is thus.

A little while ago, a company I used to do web work for as an independant contractor posted my personal fine art portfolio for sale on their website. Each original was signed in one way or the other by me and further investigation included that they removed all these name instances and rebranded the work with thier name. Furious, I posted a notice on the art community site that I belong (arcanemachinist.deviantart.com) to which also hosts the artwork that was stolen, stating that the company had stolen my artwork and had put it up for sale and that the sales were fake and to not buy any of it.

I also followed up with a formal written, signed and snail-mailed (usps) to their internet host informing them of a copyright violation and that I would press charges if it was not taken care of immediately.

A couple weeks later, I'm hit with an arbitration case stating breech of contract of which has a term for 3 years to "Design/Animate" for the company. It also conveniently included an addendum underneath the signature lines of the contract stating that I had signed over exclusivity to thecompany for the art in question.

I stated that the contract was fake and that I didn't sign a contract with any such terms. My lawer then begins to use the word "forgery" which I knew would be a stretch as when I signed my aggrement with the company I was never provided a copy of the contract even when I explicitly requested one.

The arbitration case continues under the premise that I claimed that he forged my signature, but that is not at all what I said. I simply said that I didn't sign a contract with these terms.

Before the arbitration case I had never seen or heard about this contract ever. The addendum specifically targets the points I made to the web host about infringements as well as being unexecuted by me. My statements about the art theft were based on my knowledge that I had never signed such a thing and that they created the contract to cover themselves.

They have stated that they will sue me for libel and slander if I don't cover the cost of their legal fees which totals $15,000, I took down all my accusations relating to this matter.

None of the artwork in question was created for the company, it was all done while I was attending college.

My question is this:

Original Question - Can they sue me for libel and slander or was I just in my accusations about them stealing my art?
Edited Question - Is the addendum in the contract enforceable and if so, why? Do they have a case for libel and slander, if so why? I protected by the fact they actually can't sell my art as they never legally obtained those rights?

 

[JETX]

Can they sue me for libel and slander or was I just in my accusations about them stealing my art?

Of course they can sue you.... claiming anything they want. Anyone can sue almost anyone else over almost anything. That is what the courts are for... to hear both sides and make a decision as to who is more likely correct.

 

[arcanemachinist]

Of course they can sue you.... claiming anything they want. Anyone can sue almost anyone else over almost anything. That is what the courts are for... to hear both sides and make a decision as to who is more likely correct.

I get that much. I know its possible to sue anyone for anything, but I guess I was more looking for some opinions as to whether or not what I did was can be considered libel.

 

[JETX]

I get that much. I know its possible to sue anyone for anything, but I guess I was more looking for some opinions as to whether or not what I did was can be considered libel.

Based solely on the information in your post, I would say that they have a pretty good case of libel against you... unless you can PROVE your claims ("the artwork that was stolen, stating that the company had stolen my artwork and had put it up for sale and that the sales were fake and to not buy any of it") .are true.

 

[arcanemachinist]

I guess that makes sense. That's why I uncluded the bit about the unexecuted appendix to the contract. If it is unexecuted that means I didn't agree to it and that the art in question is in fact mine and that they have no rights to it, correct?

 

[badmonkey]

Based solely on the information in your post, I would say that they have a pretty good case of libel against you... unless you can PROVE your claims ("the artwork that was stolen, stating that the company had stolen my artwork and had put it up for sale and that the sales were fake and to not buy any of it") .are true.

To prove libel in the US, the claimant must prove that your statements were false. The burden of proof is not on the defendent to prove that they were true. So, think about how they might try to argue that your statements were false, and what your defense might be.

They also have to prove damages, which in this case would seem tricky to nail down. Therefore even in the worst case scenario, your losses may be less than what they are asking for! (This is not to say your total costs; but it is a factor which will enter into their decision to proceed or not - i.e. it might not be worth their while, even if they could win).

Another tactic might be to proceed with your copyright action. A neutral outcome might be that you both agree to drop claims against each other, so as to minimize damage to all parties, or you might press ahead with it, achieve a favorable ruling, and use that as a solid defense against any libel claims.

With respect to your contract, which this obviously hinges on, I have no idea. It would seem from what you're saying that it would be a black-and-white case, but apparently not. It seems that "forgery" would refer to the addendum itself, not your signature, i.e. they are forging those elements of the contract. If you are already using an attorney, what is his opinion?

 

[JETX]

To prove libel in the US, the claimant must prove that your statements were false.

And of course, that is NOT true. I suggest you look at libel per se or slander per se.

They also have to prove damages, which in this case would seem tricky to nail down.

And of course, that is not true either. Depending on the full facts, there could be punitive damages awarded, without any offer of proof of actual direct damages.

I suggest you NOT listen to the offerings of this legal moron.... who clearly has NO legal education or experience... other than watching Judge Judy.

 

[Quaere]

There is a presumption of innocence on the part of a defamation plaintiff. Once he claims the statements made about him are false, the plaintiff has met his burden.

If the defendant wants to use a defense of truth, it is his/her burden to prove that the statements are true.

 

[badmonkey]

Explain please

Still re libel, the OP's concern is regarding a claim by the would-be plaintiff that the published statement by the would-be defendent, along the lines of "the company had stolen my artwork and had put it up for sale and that the sales were fake", is libel.

Burden of proof on the plaintiff
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. He or she is presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (in criminal law), or until the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities (in civil law). However, in some countries' legal systems (such as the UK and Australia) this burden of proof is reversed. In other countries, like the USA, the burden of proof is on the accuser, consistent with other laws.
- Wikipedia

While both American and British law preclude liability if the statement is true, American law places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show the statement is false.
- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

It is my understanding that the plaintiff in this situation would have to prove that they hadn't stolen the artwork and that the sales were not fake, if they wished to win a libel case. Tell me how I am wrong.

 

[JETX]

Tell me how I am wrong.

Very simple.... and in the words of the OP.

Defendant claims that that were damaged when plaintiff "posted a notice on the art community site that I belong (arcanemachinist.deviantart.com) to which also hosts the artwork that was stolen, stating that the company had stolen my artwork and had put it up for sale and that the sales were fake and to not buy any of it."

Defendant offers to the court that the plaintiff signed a "contract of which has a term for 3 years to "Design/Animate" for the company. It also conveniently included an addendum underneath the signature lines of the contract stating that I had signed over exclusivity to thecompany for the art in question", showing that the artwork was NOT stolen.

There goes your defamation case.
Wow, that was REALLY easy... and would have been obvious to anyone with a modicum of legal experience.

 

[Quaere]

Bad Monkey, you made the following general statement about defamation law:

“To prove libel in the US, the claimant must prove that your statements were false. The burden of proof is not on the defendant to prove that they were true.”

I replied with the following:

“There is a presumption of innocence on the part of a defamation plaintiff. Once he claims the statements made about him are false, the plaintiff has met his burden.”

A more accurate statement might have been, “The burden of proof regarding the truth of a defamatory statement is case specific. It may be entirely on one party or the other or may be shared by both parties.”

If the claim involves publication of facts that are provably false (ie. “Joe has never paid child support for his daughter”) the plaintiff should be able to easily produce evidence that the statement is false and he would be expected to do so.

Someday, someone is going to do some hairsplitting on the placement of that burden on the plaintiff. In the example given above, why should Joe have to prove anything to some third party that made statements without checking out the facts?

But I digress. The majority of defamation cases involve accusations that the plaintiff has done something he denies doing. He can’t prove a negative so it is enough for him to claim the statement is false. The burden of proving otherwise, shifts to the defendant, who would have to prove he was justified in making the statement.

In OP’s case, the burden of proof is going to shift back and forth several times. There does not appear to be any dispute over who actually created the artwork. There is an issue over who owns the artwork.

THIS plaintiff will have a burden to prove the stealing allegation is false. We would presume that an artist is the sole owner of his copyright, unless someone else can prove ownership.

So you see, there is no simple answer to who has the burden of proof regarding the accuracy of the offensive statement.

Wikipedia hits most of the key points to any legal question, but should not be taken as a complete or necessarily accurate source. The entries are written by volunteers and I can't even be sure what some of the things in the paragraph you quoted refer to.

Nor can you take something from an attorney's site and assume it is complete or accurate. They don't usually go into detail and as a result, they sometimes summarize things in a way that gives the wrong impression to a reader.

 

[Quaere]

arcanemachinist:

Original Question - Can they sue me for libel and slander or was I just in my accusations about them stealing my art?

Your accusations were just, only if you can prove you are the sole owner of the artwork and they were selling them without your permission.

If they can prove they own the art, they would have a claim for defamation because they did not steal anything and you said they did.