That's the argument attorney Bernard Rhodes, representing Fox, said in documents filed today in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri:
Nothing in this action seeks to prevent Carnahan from posing those same questions or even from reporting that those questions were asked of Blunt during the FNS Interview. All that Plaintiffs seek is to stop Defendant from infringing FNC’s intellectual property rights and from misappropriating Wallace’s likeness and persona. Thus, the only thing preventing Defendant from communicating the facts of the FNS Interview to Missouri voters is its own laziness and resulting refusal to create its own intellectual property. That Defendant refuses to create an advertisement reporting the facts of the FNS Interview, without misappropriating Wallace’s likeness or identity and FNC’s intellectual property, makes clear that the sole value of the clip is that it falsely implies that Wallace endorses Carnahan.
2 comments:
"Wallace’s likeness or identity and FNC’s intellectual property, makes clear that the sole value of the clip is that it falsely implies that Wallace endorses Carnahan."
That's a laugh. Wouldn't it be great if the judge ruled that he himself was surprised that FOX actually did some indepth investigating to ask Roy this tough question?
Someone said look of Roy on camera was like "are my pants unzipped?"
...the suit is frivolous. I hope the judge throws it out and fines FOX and Blunt.
Isn't this the type of stuff the conservatives are against?
Post a Comment