BIG favor: Does anybody have F-9/11 on DVD?

[rucky]

I'd like to know exactly what this vet said on camera - the one suing Michael Moore for a million billion dollars.

He's claiming his statements were taken out of context, but I seem to recall him making a fairly strong statement that seemed to stand on its own.

Of course, the never mention what was actuall said in any of the articles I've read - but that hasn't prevented the RW media from presenting this lawsuit as proof that MM is a liar.


EDIT: found mention of the content & specifics on the complaint in the BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5036052.stm

[sinkingfeeling]

1. I have it, but it's at home and I'm not.

[LSK]

4. same here

[Avalux]

2. I have it. What exactly are you referring to?

I'm at work so don't have access to the DVD right now, but I can check it for you when I get home this afternoon.

[SteppingRazor]

3. He said he felt like he was being trapped in a vice...

In the context of the movie, it seemed as though he was talking about the treatment of veterans by the government. But the soldier maintains he was talking about actual, physical pain.

To be fair, his words do work in either context.

[rucky]

5. Here's the BBC summary:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5036052.stm

In Moore's documentary, Sgt Damon is shown lying on a stretcher with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels like he is "being crushed in a vise".

The clip is screened shortly after US Congressman Jim McDermott is seen speaking about the Bush administration: "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind".

The sergeant, from Middleborough, Massachusetts, claims that by putting the news clip of him immediately after the Congressman's comments, director Moore made Sgt Damon appear as if he felt "left behind" by the military and the Bush administration.

...

sounds clear he was talking about the accident... he just didn't like the next clip.

[RandiFan1290]

20. I'm sorry but you are wrong

Please watch the film again.

[SteppingRazor]

24. am I? I don't think so. Here's the whole transcript...

from the congressman's words, to a bit after the soldier in question:


They say they're not gonna leave
any veteran behind...
...but they're leaving all kinds
of veterans behind.


To say we're forgotten,
I know we're not. But missed? Yes.

Yes. There's a lot of soldiers
that have been missed...
...that have been skipped over.

Didn't get the proper coverage
they deserved.

There's a death toll, but not
showing the injured or amputated.

- I still feel like I have hands.
- Yeah.
And the pain is like my hands
are being crushed in a vise.

But they do a lot to help it...
...and they take a lot
of the edge off it.

It makes it a lot more tolerable.

I was injured in late April
on patrol in Baghdad.

A couple of guys come out
and ambushed us.
I got nerve damage
and stuff like that.
I've got a lot of pain.
I'm constantly in pain.



I take a lot of morphine...
...to help with that and stuff.

I'm doing...Doing... You know, just readjusting.
Getting life back on track.
You know what I'm saying?
I'm not gonna do what it is
that I did before.
I was a Republican
for quite a few years.
And...for some reason, they...
They conduct business
in a very dishonest way.
I'm gonna be incredibly active
in the Democratic Party...
...down where I live once I get out.
I'm gonna definitely do my best...
...to ensure that the Democrats
win control.

Iraq, Baghdad, I didn't know
anything of those things.



Now, given that the leadup is someone complaining about veterans being left behind, and the followup is a soldier saying he's joining the Democratic Party, is it really much of a leap to assume that the soldier in the middle feels the same way? I find it incredibly disingenuous to just dismiss the soldier's claim entirely. I don't think it's fair to the soldier, or to Moore.

And don't tell me to go watch a film I've probably seen two dozen times.

[RandiFan1290]

26. Here is what you said

He said he felt like he was being trapped in a vice...

In the context of the movie, it seemed as though he was talking about the treatment of veterans by the government. But the soldier maintains he was talking about actual, physical pain.

To be fair, his words do work in either context.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Please watch the film again. :hi:

[SteppingRazor]

27. My original misquote doesn't change the actual dialogue of the film...

which I pointed out in my response to you. The misquote was pulled from my own memory banks, not any actual source. In any case, as I pointed out afterward, I think -- given the actual quotes -- that the soldier should at least be considered, in all fairness. And to defend Michael Moore -- a man whose raison d'etre is questioning everything -- with knee-jerk reactions seems sadly ironic.

And, no, I will not watch the film again, no matter how pleasantly or how many times you tell me to :hi:

[RandiFan1290]

29. That's OK. I will continue to defend Mike.

I was just suggesting you watch the segment in context before making anymore "knee-jerk" reactions.

[SteppingRazor]

30. ba dum psssh!

That snark is so typical of you Lake Worthians. Go back to the freakin' Bamboo Room, ya nut. :evilgrin:

[RandiFan1290]

32. Nice!!!! Typical knee-jerk Pompanonian

We love the Bamboo Room but we prefer to hang out with the terr'ists over at the Quaker House ;)

[SteppingRazor]

33. Yeah, you would. n/t

:P

[peacebaby3]

31. I actually remember this part well and I can honestly tell you that I

didn't make any assumptions about how he felt about the war and his politics. The second soldier was very straight forward about how he felt so I actually figured the guy before him must not feel very strongly or he would have said so.

I can see both sides to this argument, but I don't really think it should meet the standard in court. I'm not the judge though and I work on the criminal side of the law not civil.

[SteppingRazor]

34. There's a few legal questions involved, I think...

first, can a reasonable person construe the soldier in question to be against Bush or the war? As with you, I can sort of see both sides to this.

second, and perhaps more importantly, did the soldier consent for his words to be used in the film? From what I gather, he did not. Moore bought the interview from NBC, where it was news and, therefore, did not need a consent waiver to be used, since agreeing to an interview is implied consent. But once the footage is carried over to Moore, does the implied consent still hold? On that question, I honestly haven't a clue.

[peacebaby3]

37. Yea. I'm not really sure about that either. It will be very interesting to

see what the courts say on this one.

[LA lady]

6. this is from BBC

In Moore's documentary, Sgt Damon is shown lying on a stretcher with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels like he is "being crushed in a vise".

The clip is screened shortly after US Congressman Jim McDermott is seen speaking about the Bush administration: "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind".

The sergeant, from Middleborough, Massachusetts, claims that by putting the news clip of him immediately after the Congressman's comments, director Moore made Sgt Damon appear as if he felt "left behind" by the military and the Bush administration.

Sgt Damon maintains he was complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that he was suffering as a result of his wounds.

NBC has issued a statement that they did not give a release to Moore, he was responsible for getting it. No word yet whether he did.

[librechik]

7. Michael Moore needs to settle immediately or produce a signed waiver

if this guy was not compensated or didn't give permission, he is due apologies and pay. However, if he signed a permission, then he needs to STFU. MM's and Studio lawyers need to respond ASAP.

[LA lady]

17. doesn't look like there is a release

I think he is going to owe some money:

An NBC News spokeswoman responded through an e-mail about the news organization's policy on use of its material.

"As all news organizations do, NBC News does license footage that has already aired on NBC programs," wrote NBC News spokesman Barbara Levin. "As a general rule, most news organizations, including NBC News, do not obtain releases from people who appear on our news programs.

"When we do license footage — as in this instance — NBC includes a provision that it is the responsibility of the licensee, not NBC, to obtain all required consents and releases necessary to use the footage," she wrote.

Based on that policy, it would have been up to Moore to get any needed clearance.

http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/15/news/news/news02.txt

[KansDem]

8. This movie came out in 2004. Why the lawsuit now?

Two years later. I wonder...

The National Guardsman stated in case papers that he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind".

Also, do documentary film-makers need consent when using news footage?

[Ian David]

13. If he wasn't "left behind" then why did he need a private charity...

to give him a house???

Let's call Homes for Our Troops and ask them to kick this ungrateful bastard out on the street.

He says he wasn't left behind, then he doesn't need their help!

He said that, while at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center recovering from his wounds, he had surgery and physical therapy, learned to use prosthetics and live independently. He also said that Homes For Our Troops, a not-for-profit group, built him a house with handicapped accessibility.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/9302864/detail.html

"Not left behind" my ass!

I feel bad for the guy, and I wish him a speedy recovery. I hope he manages to put food on his family. We owe him a great debt for his service.

But you know what?

This administration-- the one that put him in harm's way-- has left him homeless and injured-- and he stands there defending the rat bastards that did this to him?

After paying $8 Trillion, I don't think we should have needed 59 companies working together to take care of this man. I think, if our huge national debt should do anything, it should take proper care of our sick and injured vets.

We owe them that much.

See prior thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1326794&mesg_id=1327219



See also:

Simpson is in line for the program's second house. "I just bought the land for the first house on Veterans Day, and we'll break ground hopefully in the next couple of weeks," Gonsalves explained. "The house will be built in Middleboro, Mass., for Army Sgt. Peter Damon of Brockton, Mass., and his family."

Damon is a Massachusetts Army National Guard helicopter mechanic who volunteered to go to Iraq to with an Alabama National Guard unit that didn't have enough people, according to Gonsalves.

"He and an Alabama Guardsmen were changing a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter when it exploded," he said. "The guy he was working with was killed, and Peter lost both of his arms."

Enough money and building materials have been donated to build Damon's house, Gonsalves noted. "And we have about $20,000 worth of building materials for Simpson's house," he continued. "Homes for Our Troops will add about $10,000 to whatever is raised tonight. Plus, Gene will get a $50,000 grant from Veterans Affairs for an adaptive home."

Gonsalves said people across the country, from Maine to Arizona, are holding fundraisers for Homes for Our Troops. "People do events like this for us because people's mind-set is a lot different than it was 30 years ago after the Vietnam War," he noted. "We do a lot more for our veterans now. And people have really embraced this cause. I think it's just wonderful."

More:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2004/n11192004_2004111902.html

Tell Homes for Our Troops that Damon wasn't "Left Behind" by the administration, and doesn't need their help!

Contact:

John Gonsalves, President and Founder
Email: [e-mail]

Mailing Address:
Homes For Our Troops, Inc.
1 Taunton Green
Taunton, MA 02780

Phone: [phone] or Toll Free: (866) 7 TROOPS
Fax: [phone]

http://www.homesforourtroops.org/site/PageServer?pagename=contactus

[Ian David]

9. What he actually said was....

What Sgt Damon actually said was, "I like having my testicle in a vice. I like clamps on my nipples and vibrating butt plugs. When Michael Moore sees this tape, ask him if he'd like to do some 'Pony Play' with me."

Some people say.

[jane_pippin]

10. I don't understand the conflict here...

I've been away from DU for a bit so please fill me in if I'm misunderstanding this.

A guy does an interview with a TV station. Presumably, he has to sign a release form for the TV station.

Later, Michael Moore uses the clip of the interview in a movie. I assume Moore would have to get the rights to the clip, (or whatever the proper legal phrase is), from the TV station. I'm guessing he did that as it's a pretty basic step in filmmaking, right?

Why then, does this interviewee think he has any right to sue Michael Moore for using his interview in the movie? When you sign a release form, aren't you agreeing that your words and image as represented on that video tape is the property of the station to use as they please for all time? If the station wanted to use it in a commercial for their news, wouldn't they be able to do that without further permission from the interviewee? Why is releasing the clip for use in a film any different?

What did I miss? What am I not getting here? Help me understand. Thanks.

[Catherine Vincent]

11. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

:)

[jane_pippin]

12. Well sure, there's that. :) But it just seems like there's no way

he's going to get the outcome he wants if he signed a release form with the station in the first place, and I can't imagine he wouldn't have. It just seems like there's absolutely nothing to his claim other than he's mad that he was used in a movie and wants to cash in. That's sad for him, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

[charlie]

14. NBC says it likely didn't secure a release

"As all news organizations do, NBC News does license footage that has already aired on NBC programs," wrote NBC News spokesman Barbara Levin. "As a general rule, most news organizations, including NBC News, do not obtain releases from people who appear on our news programs.

"When we do license footage — as in this instance — NBC includes a provision that it is the responsibility of the licensee, not NBC, to obtain all required consents and releases necessary to use the footage," she wrote.

...

George Tobia Jr., a partner and entertainment attorney with Boston firm Burns & Levinson, said if a person agrees to an interview without signing a release form, there is an implied consent.

"The implied consent is usually good enough for the interview," Tobia said. "The question is, how far does the implied consent go?

"Unless NBC has a signed document granting them full rights, unless they had those rights, I would expect the filmmakers would want to go back to this guy and get his permission. Otherwise it's invasion of his privacy for this usage," Tobia said.

...

"If he didn't sign that, then he's got some fairly serious rights about its use," Williams said.

Both attorneys said the footage from NBC would not be considered part of the public domain.

They also said they could not imagine Moore did not obtain consent from NBC to use its images.

"I would assume he got consent from them. Obviously there's a lot of money at stake," Williams said.

http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/15/news/news/news02.txt

Lot's more at the link.

[jane_pippin]

15. Ahhh, thanks for the info. That changes things doesn't it.

Well. Good luck with that, Mike.

[Gabi Hayes]

35. watch who's saying what, and on which side that person's bread is buttered

....I just heard a legal expert on Ed Schulz say just the opposite.

he said that the guy agreed to be on NBC news, so his consent was implied. Once he's been on the international airwaves, he, uh waives his right to control how his image is used. he said what he said and, according to this guy, the courts have established precedent that will be very tough for this guy to overturn

so there

and you KNOW that NBC would have done something about this a long time ago if they'd had trouble with Moore using their footage without permission

[rucky]

19. Pardon the sick pun, but this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. n/t

[Lasher]

16. Fahrenheit 9/11 Script - Dialogue Transcript

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/f/fahrenheit-911-script-transcript.html

[cantstandbush]

18. So, does NBC have release statements from all those pedophiles?

[rucky]

36. *alleged* pedophiles

but now everybody's calling them pedophiles, and nobody is about to stick their necks out to defend them. they're ruined from something that will probably not hold up as evidence in court.

they have a stronger case than this vet.

[RandiFan1290]

21. I have it right here

The segment starts at the 1:40 mark. This guy has NO CASE. This is complete bullshit. It just shows him explaining to his Dr. that it feels like he still has hands and they are being squeezed in a vice. Then he says the meds are helping to relieve his pain. There is absolutely nothing there to suggest that this man is for or against anything.

BBC has it wrong. It is WELL after Jim McDermott makes his statement. There are short interviews with 2 other soldiers before they get to the part in question.

[rucky]

22. Thanks, Randifan!

:yourock:

[RandiFan1290]

23. You're welcome rucky

:)

[Bake]

25. Given that the guy is IN THE HOSPITAL

it seems pretty obvious that he wasn't "left behind." So what's his beef? There doesn't appear to be any false light claim here based on what he actually said.

Even assuming that no one obtained a release, there's no way that he has damages in the millions of dollars, as he is claiming. I don't see this being a case for punitive damages based on the failure to get a release, as that failure can easily be construed as simple negligence and not intentionally tortious behavior.

Bake

[SteppingRazor]

28. That, I think, is the more-legitimate grounds for defending Moore...

simple negligence versus willfully malicious