'CSI' Writer Accused of Televised Revenge Plot

Destiny said:
Wow does this mean I have a case when someone writes and ep with my name (be it first middle or last) in it? :p
Click to expand...

First off, if you did something to piss someone off, and they just happened to create a character based off of you, and this character was a total misrepresentation of you, then yes, you have a case.

I think people are letting the couples motives get in the way of the real issue here; SG moral compass. What she did was blatent and irresponsible and she needs to get punished for it. END OF STORY. Do I think she (Or should I say the company) need(s) to get punished for a whopping total of 6 Million dollars? Not necessarily. It may be a bit excessive. But the bottom line is that nobody gets away with libel these days. You say one wrong thing, whether it be in Newspaper, Online or even scripts that were put online, then you deserve to face the music even if its to the tune of 6 million.

Sorry, SG, but I bet you and alot of other people will think twice before getting back at someone by created fictitious characters about them.

She gets what she gets. She took the risk of getting sued when she created those characters. And now they're following through.
 
If its true, I won't dispute the fact that SG did wrong. However, I think the couple is wrong to sue CBS for it. Like I said before, is CBS expected to know everyone that every single employee has had dealings with? If this couple had just brought a lawsuit against SG and stopped there, then maybe I'd be a little more on their side. But, I personally find it unfair that CBS should have to suffer money losses because of something an employee did without their knowledge. Not to mention the fact that when they found out, CBS did the right thing by making sure the last names were changed (though they only found out at the last minute it seems). So, again... I do not understand why they are going after CBS in addition to SG. CBS had no knowledge of it in the beginning and they corrected it when they did find out. So, the fact that they are going after CBS kind of makes me feel like they are only after the money. They should have stopped with SG. She's the only one they should be filing a lawsuit with.
 
Kimbo08 said:
I think people are letting the couples motives get in the way of the real issue here; SG moral compass. What she did was blatent and irresponsible and she needs to get punished for it. END OF STORY.
Click to expand...

It's not the end of the story. We still don't know what this couple did, we have ONLY heard what SG did. Do you know how many characters, whether on TV, in movies, books are based on someone else?

The fact remains, that the last names WERE NOT used in the episode and part of script that appeared online is no proof that their business suffered from it.

Morals? I don't think this had anything to do with morals. It might have been unethical, but not immoral. IMO. Whether SG was right or wrong doesn't matter, they're last names did not make it on the show and, seriously, how many people saw the script online? I'm sure not many and no where near how many people watch the show or to affect their business. Besides, the last name probably wasn't in the final script.

Either way, I don't think they'll win and since I believe they're just going after money since the housing market is horrible, what they're doing is immoral. I mean why didn't they sue when the episode came out? It seems to me that when this 'script' came online would've affected their business as soon as it was released.

The fact remains that all parties involved are wrong in this.
 
CBS had no knowledge of it in the beginning and they corrected it when they did find out. So, the fact that they are going after CBS kind of makes me feel like they are only after the money. They should have stopped with SG. She's the only one they should be filing a lawsuit with.
Click to expand...

They aired the episode, that's enough for the plaintives. Whether it was done tacitly or not, CBS are party in this because they aired the episode.

Whether SG was right or wrong doesn't matter, they're last names did not make it on the show and, seriously, how many people saw the script online? I'm sure not many and no where near how many people watch the show or to affect their business. Besides, the last name probably wasn't in the final script.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter because it was published via the internet which as much of a medium as television. Libel is libel

AP defines libel as, simply, "injury to reputation." So all they have to do is prove that the leak of the early draft of the script somehow damaged their reputation (and frankly, it's hard to see how it could not) to win this case.
Click to expand...

That's what it will boil down to in the end. Whether or not this will have affected their reputation.

t used to be that libel cases hinged on malicious intent. In other words, if the complainant could prove that the writer deliberately intended to malign their character (intent being very hard to prove), then they might win their lawsuit. But no more. As AP says: "Words, pictures or cartoons that expose a person to public hatred, shame, disgrace or ridicule, or induce an ill opinion of a person are libelous."
Click to expand...

And there you have it. To me it sounds as even if the person is exposed to all the above it's enough for SG to be found libelous.

Courts are slowly recognizing the power of the internet and how posting of real names can be dangerous. In my case, when I talked to someone about my name being posted along with some nasty words, they told me if the person posted them there with the intent of causing you harm, they are dangerously hovering near libel.

People like SG and the ones who were harassing me should know better, bashing someone online is a no no and if they want to avoid being sued, they better quit while they are ahead-although for SG it might be too late.

The entertainment industry is a small world and SG may win this lawsuit, but she'll have lost the war because she let a little bit of power go to her head.
 
I don't know or care about SG's moral or ethic compass, but I'm still wondering if what the agents did was extremely clever or extremely stupid. "Oh, a CSI writer who had a failed deal with us wrote a sketch with our names on it and someone within our area might see it and might think that nasty stuff was written after us! now how's that for a great idea?: Let's sue not only her, but THE WHOLE CHANNEL for 6 million dollars, so now everybody in and out of our area KNOWS that nasty stuff was written after us!!! even more, now people who didn't know us, now will and will immediately associate us with that nasty stuff allegedly written after us!!! Brilliant!!!"
 
speedystokesgirl said:
Kimbo08 said:
I think people are letting the couples motives get in the way of the real issue here; SG moral compass. What she did was blatent and irresponsible and she needs to get punished for it. END OF STORY.
Click to expand...

It's not the end of the story. We still don't know what this couple did, we have ONLY heard what SG did. Do you know how many characters, whether on TV, in movies, books are based on someone else?
Click to expand...

Yep, and if the person has a case, they have a case. If the characters have the exact names FIRST AND LAST(they made it on the internet so it DOES matter) and the characters portrayed are way off base, then they have a case. I'm not saying they'll win. I'm just saying they have grounds to sue.

Was it stupid for them to make a BIG deal out of it, airing their dirty laundry for all the world to see? Yes. Very. But lets not miss the point here. SG WAS WRONG! It's He said, She said.

And to be quite honest, SG should have really known better. I'm just glad that this lawsuit has hit the airwaves because now, what she has done, is dig a deep hole for herself. Whether it was justified or not, her moral compass is jacked. I don't know about some of you who say you "don't care about her moral or ethical compass". I say shame on you. :rolleyes: Serisously. Do we not hold TPTB to the same ethical code that we hold others too? Is she on some pedestal that I don't know about? Is she some how above the law, because her poor feelings were hurt and she decided to take advantage of the creative leverage she had? I say no, she is not. And the sooner they make an example out of her the better.

Even if they lose the case, I have lost a decent amount of respect for SG because of what she did.

Just because they are suing for 6 Mil. doesn't make their argument any less sound IMHO. And like I said, it's not like their real estate agents in Podunk, Alabama. They lived and worked in L.A. Way bigger market.
 
Kimbo08 said:
Destiny said:
Wow does this mean I have a case when someone writes and ep with my name (be it first middle or last) in it? :p
Click to expand...

First off, if you did something to piss someone off, and they just happened to create a character based off of you, and this character was a total misrepresentation of you, then yes, you have a case.
Click to expand...
Okay then I was actually joking. ;) Heck if I sued everyone that pissed me off I would never leave the inside of a court room. :lol:

Besides there are two sides to every story and as the saying goes somewhere in the middle is the truth, which ususally gets lost. More likely then not they will argue it out a bit, both getting a bunch of publicity be it good and bad and then they will probably both settle it as quietly as possible depending on how much of a mountain that mole hill was made into from both sides. To the point of nausating those who read about it while muttering, why the heck don't they just get over it. :p :lol:
 
More than likely, the only people who would actually recognize the names in the episode would be people who knew or knew of the real Tamkins. And the only people who wouldn't just write it off as a freaky but laughable coincedence would be those who knew of whatever incident or disagreement caused the unhappy feling between the parties in the first place. So, really, where's the harm?
This is not detracting from Goldfinger's culpability. Personally, I would see no problem with Goldfingers' actions if she had altered the names of the characters even slightly from the true people's names. This would send the message she wanted, but subtly, not including the whole world in a relatively minor dispute. Having the full names was extremely short-sighted, insulting and crude form of revenge.
 
It doesn't matter if we remember them, even if the episode had potential damage to their reputation, they have a right to sue.
Click to expand...
oh yeah, sure they do. nobody said they don't. thing is, it's a big gamble. if they win, it's all good cuz they get money (not necassarily $6 mil, probably less), but if they lose they have very little business left to do. *shrugs*

i'm still wondering about one thing, though. when did SG try to buy a house from them? b/c if it was, let's say, 10 years ago, maybe she didn't think much of it? i know it's a big stretch, more like a huge one, but there is a tiny chance she subconsiously thought those names would fit to these characters. if the dispute was not long ago, the chances of this happening are of course none.
 
i can see both sides of it i guess - i think that what SG did was (as has been said) pretty irresponsible and shouldn't have been done. i think on the grounds of libel they do seem to have a case, and as has been said it's not necessarily their business (although that's what they're claiming) but their reputation that's been slurred (and reputation will affect business).

that said i think by making such a public lawsuit (i don't know whether all this publicity was intended!) they're not doing themselves any favours - by making such a high profile case they're drawing attention to something that may well have been ignored/missed by everyone and his dog, and they're not painting themselves in the best light.

i don't know whether i agree with cbs being sued - on one hand i think the point about them not being able to vet every single thing their employees do is a fair one but on the other hand, they have corporate responsibility, that's what they (presumably) hire lawyers for, to check these things. it's true that they can't keep tabs on everything, but the fact that they changed the names suggests they knew the situation - so why did they let it air?
 
Well, I think maybe cbs found out about the situation a little too late. However, in addition to changing the last names, they should have also changed the first names. The could have changed the first names to Stuart and Martina and then the only thing similiar would be the initials. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top