New York Law School Blog Analyzes the Help Lawsuit: Predicts Failure
New York Law School's legal reporting blog breaks down the Help lawsuit against Jackson native Kathryn Stockett in this post. I'm sick that I did not think of the title of the post: “Maid Looking to 'Clean Up' in Lawsuit.” That's outstanding.
The post identifies the elements that the plaintiff is likely to have to prove in the case:
typically a plaintiff must prove (1) the actual appropriation of one’s identity by use of her name or likeness (2) without consent, (3) for the commercial gain of another.
But there are problems for the plaintiff:
In cases of creative works, the first amendment can serve as a shield against lawsuits such as this one. Courts have held that under the first amendment if a work is transformative it is not misappropriation. A work is transformative if original, expressive elements are added when using a person’s name or likeness.
As a result, the author predicts that the justice systeme will offer no help to the plaintiff:
Ms. Cooper and Aibileen may have a lot in common, including a unique name, but a court will probably find that a significant amount of original expression was used to shape this deep and complex character. Ms. Stockett said in an interview with USA Today that Aibileen is “intelligent, an author, a devoted servant of the Lord and a good mother.” This may also be true about Ms. Cooper, but Aibileen transcends these attributes – her relationships with the other women in the book and the fictional journey she takes are meant to shed light on a time when women’s lives were decided for them and the suffocation they must have felt. A court will likely find that the “sum and substance” of the book comes from the characters that Ms. Stockett breathed life into, not from the mere imitation of a real person.
The name of the blog you're quoting from is Legal as She is Spoke.
www.lasisblog.com
And you're right, it is an outstanding headline!
I agree. A great headline. I also feel sorry for the plaintiff, but I suppose that's the way the law breaks down. In my research, I've found that claims like these are very difficult to prove. I guess it's a good thing because, otherwise, we'd have a lot more of these claims (in an already very crowded court system).