Olivia De Havilland Files A Correct Of Publicity Arrange Against Feud Producers

Legendary actress Olivia de Havilland celebrates her 101^st birthday today. Happy Birthday Miss de Havilland!

If yous compass non think who Olivia de Havilland is, yous may lead to lookout adult man Feud , a idiot box series, which starting fourth dimension flavor details the rivalry betwixt Bette Davis as well as Joan Crawford, which currently streams inward the U.S. as well as volition last shown inward the Fall on BBC 2.

But this may non last a expert idea, equally Miss de Havilland has taken criminal offense of her portrayal inward Feud, as well as filed yesterday a California correct of publicity as well as invasion of privacy (by publicly placing a mortal inward mistaken lite inward earth eye) lawsuit inward the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the producers of Feud (Hat Tip to Hollywood Reporter).

Miss de Havilland, played past times Catherine Zeta-Jones, is featured inward the opening sequence, equally she is existence interviewed during the 1978 Academy Awards. During the interview, Catherine Zeta-Jones, equally Olivia de Havilland, is portrayed equally saying: "There was never a rivalry similar theirs [Davis as well as Crawford]. For nearly a one-half a century, they hated each other, as well as nosotros loved them for it." The electrical load alleges that Miss de Havilland portrayal inward Feud “creates earth impression that she was a hypocrite, selling gossip inward enterprise to promote herself at the Academy Awards.”

The Complaint argues that Miss de Havilland never gave such interviews “and never made these statements most Miss Davis as well as Miss Crawford or their relationship. The interview is imitation as well as the statements attributed to OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND are false. This interview itself as well as the statements attributed to OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND are opposite to her world as well as individual icon as well as reputation as well as receive got caused her economic, reputational, as well as emotional damages, including distress, anxiety, as well as humiliation.”

Miss Zeta-Jones wears a wearing clothing similar to the i won past times Miss de Havilland that night, similar jewels, as well as hairdo. According to the complaint, the Welsh actress has fifty-fifty been fitted a mentum prosthetic to brand her await similar Miss de Havilland. The electrical load argues that “by meticulously including specific details from existent life, [Defendants] intended for the audience to believe that the events depicted as well as the statements made past times component division players inward "Feud" were accurate, as well as were genuinely quotes from existent people, including OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND.”

The electrical load anticipates a First Amendment defense, contestation that “[t]here is no world involvement to last protected past times putting mistaken statements into the oral cavity of a living person, using their hollo as well as identity for a mistaken as well as unauthorized purpose, damaging their reputation. The First Amendment does non protect the false, damaging, unauthorized work of the hollo as well as identity of a real, living celebrity only because the perpetrators cloak the operate inward the championship of pure fiction, much less a pseudo-documentary film.”

The California statutory correct of publicity claim

California provides a statutory correct of publicity, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a), nether which “[a]ny person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, inward whatever manner, on or inward products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services” must starting fourth dimension obtain the person’s consent . The electrical load alleges that Miss de Havilland did permit authorize Defendants to work her name, identity or likeness inward the Feud serial as well as its promotional materials, as well as farther alleged that Defendants knew that she has non given her consent for such use.

The California mutual police pull correct of publicity claim

California likewise recognizes a mutual police pull invasion of privacy past times appropriation of hollo or likeness, “that brings injury to the feelings, that concerns one's ain peace of mind, as well as that is mental as well as subjective,” Dora v. Frontline Video at 542. Therefore, it is non necessary at mutual police pull for the work of likeness or hollo to receive got been commercial, as well as plaintiff tin essay mental stress damages.  Indeed, the electrical load alleges that the interview featured inward Feud  “and the statements attributed to OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND are opposite to her world as well as individual icon as well as reputation as well as receive got caused her economic, reputational, as well as emotional damages, including distress, anxiety, as well as humiliation.”

How volition this legal feud end? Stay tuned…