Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

[busterbunker]

I think we're pretty much in agreement, though neither of us is privy to any legally binding agreement between Trump and Woodward, apart from some random grunting. Nor of the agreement between Woodward and Simon & Schuster, Viacom, et al. The latter will often contain a phrase such as "including the rights to reproduction in all forms of media, including those which have yet to be invented, in perpetuity...." These aren't derivative works, merely reproductions. I'd have to pull out an old contract for an exact quote, I usually just read them quickly, show me the money.

The contentions you listed and your law school scenario relate to authorship, specifically primary authorship, or perhaps joint authorship in the former - but I don't really want to go there, and is irrelevant to the lawsuit that was filed. Derivative works are based upon pre-existing works, and nothing pre-existed in either situation. The defendants in this case (and yourself) created and possess all the original material (I assume.) If one of your law students recited and created a new recording of your lecture, that would be a derivative work, and the laws pertaining to derivative works would apply.

Your claim in a video marketing dispute would be based upon the entitlements granted to the primary author - yourself - and the limited rights you transferred. That was the basis of the case I settled. Oh, I just remembered another one. The basis of U.S. copyright law is in the Constitution itself, as it was written by a bunch of authors.

When it comes to this case, I guess some guys just like a good benchslapping every now and then. I'm looking forward to another one. We'll see how it goes.

[somerset]

My opinion is that this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever.

It's not a contract dispute as there is no contract. One mechanism Trump could have employed to claim authorship is work for hire. This would have required a written agreement. I have an entire box of work-for-hire agreements from Viacom (and its subsidiaries) which is named in this lawsuit. I obtained a settlement from another network when they violated the terms of a work for hire agreement. In absence of such an agreement, the copyright is retained by the author.

This lawsuit is based upon a redefinition of derivative work which is entirely fictitious.

I do not disagree with you regarding derivative works, i.e. that the release of an audiobook or a Braille version of the book would have been within the scope of the agreement.

However, I think the following contentions are potentially meritorious:
(1) Trump gave the interviews (and consented to the interviews being recorded) with the understanding that Woodward would use them solely as a basis to write a book;
(2) With respect to the interviews themselves, Trump can be viewed as the performer, and only gave a limited license to Woodward. Trump did not give a license to use the interviews for any other purpose than the writing of Woodward's book;
(3) In addition to writing a book, Woodward and SS also released the approximately eight hours of the interviews; and
(4) The release of the interviews was beyond the scope of the license.

What license?

[much ado]

Yes, exactly.

[busterbunker]

"What license?"
Yeah!

"Yes, exactly."
Exactly!

This might be an example of a derivative work. Maybe.

[Foggy]

As a recovering lawyer, it amuses me to see attorneys argue the precise limits of any license granted by the national champion language mangler, with nothing in writing and nothing but mangled and disjointed spoken words to base the arguments on.

"When my client said 'Argle-bargle megaduck quailpost,' your Honor, what he meant was 'the license is limited to precisely one printed book, no more,' which was crystal clear from the context of the conversation!"

Edit: The other attorney raises the argle-bargle megaduck quailpost litigation of 1589, Queen Elizabeth I said that after she beat the Spanish Armada.

[RTH10260]

Trump probably won't win his $50 million lawsuit against Bob Woodward with experts saying the suit 'turns the First Amendment on its head'

Charles R. Davis
Thu, February 2, 2023 at 2:41 AM GMT+1

• Former President Trump claims he owns the audio rights to interviews conducted by Bob Woodward.
  But legal experts say it's unlikely a court will agree with Trump, who claims he's owed $50 million.
  It's "a huge reach," one lawyer told Insider.

Donald Trump wants to get paid or, at the very least, he wants to let everyone know that he's mad.

In a lawsuit filed last month, lawyers for the former president argued that he's due a hair under $50 million from journalist Bob Woodward and his publisher, Simon & Schuster, over the release of an audiobook containing more than 8 hours of interviews conducted while he was still in the White House.

"The case centers on Mr. Woodward's systematic usurpation, manipulation, and exploitation of audio of [former] President Trump," states the complaint, filed with a federal court in Florida. Woodward, the suit alleges, was entitled to use that audio for a written book — emphasis on "a," and "written" — but when that book did not sell as well as he'd hoped, the suit claims ("'Rage' was a complete and total failure"), he broke his word and packaged the recordings as a separate work.

The lawsuit hinges on an alleged promise that does not appear to have been made in writing. To support the case that The Washington Post journalist violated a contract with the former president, the lawsuit quotes a December 2019 exchange at Mar-a-Lago in which Trump, asked to speak on the record, responds: "For the book only, right? Only for the book." Woodward responds in the affirmative.

But the next line, from Trump and quoted in his own lawsuit, points to the ambiguity of that verbal agreement, indicating that the underlying issue was not whether The Washington Post journalist intended to publish one book (or two, or three), but whether he intended to use the material for articles in a newspaper: "So there's no stories coming out, okay."

Experts consulted by Insider suggest that the suit, while not nearly as flimsy as the former president's election-related litigation, is unlikely to succeed — and might just be a way to lend weight to a grievance, legitimate or not, that has no legal remedy.

"It's a press release designed as a complaint," Lloyd J. Jassin, a lawyer who specializes in copyright disputes, said in an interview. Trump styles himself as a savvy businessman — his lawsuit lists all his best-selling books on how to get rich — and yet he got burned by a reporter.

"There's no detriment to him other than injury, in my opinion, to his ego and image," Jassin said.




https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-probab ... 08158.html

(original: INSIDER)

[RTH10260]

The former guy gets his lawsuit removed - let the fun continue in New York

Trump's $50M Pensacola copyright lawsuit to be transferred to New York

08/31/2023
BENJAMIN JOHNSON Pensacola News Journal

Amid former President Donald Trump's ever-growing legal trouble in various courts around the country, a Pensacola-based federal judge ruled Trump's $50 million copyright lawsuit against famed journalist Bob Woodward must be transferred to a New York court.

Federal Judge M. Casey Rodgers ordered that the "venue in this district is 'wrong' and 'improper'" earlier in August, saying Trump's lawsuit must continue in the Southern District of New York.

"The clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as the court concludes that district is the most appropriate and convenient forum for the parties and witnesses and the one with the strongest connection to the dispute," the judge's order said.



https://eu.pnj.com/story/news/local/pen ... 711997007/

[RTH10260]

carrying over an earlier post

Mini-update on Trump's suit against Bob Woodward + publisher over interview recordings used in Woodward's book -- there's an initial venue fight (FL v. NY/DC) and an imminent motion to dismiss fight. Trump is open to settlement talks, defendants say nah https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... 2kSBBTI/v0