Media Matters

When Fair Use Is Foul

Although publishers often cry “fair use” to defend their use of copyrighted images, two recent federal court decisions highlight the … Read More

2/26 - A federal judge in Texas has ruled that Exxon can pursue its defamation claim against California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Bonta, the court held, could not completely shield himself with official immunity because one of the allegedly defamatory statements was made in a campaign email to Texas residents that included a donation link, which made it campaign activity rather than official government speech. Exxon’s defamation claims against several environmental groups and a charity, however, were thrown out because the court found it lacked personal jurisdiction over those defendants in Texas.

2/9 - Netflix has reached a settlement to resolve the defamation lawsuit brought by Vanity Fair journalist Rachel DeLoache Williams over her portrayal in the Shonda Rhimes–produced series Inventing Anna. Williams, a former friend of con artist Anna Sorokin (aka Anna Delvey), sued Netflix in 2022, claiming the show depicted her in a false and damaging light. The lawsuit alleged that the series made her appear “snobbish, disloyal and dishonest,” which she said damaged her reputation and led to harassment. The court initially denied Netflix’s motion to dismiss, and the case settled while Netflix’s summary judgment motion was pending. The dispute highlights legal risks for entertainment based on real people when creative license intersects with alleged reputational harm.

1/13 - The BBC has filed a motion in a federal court in Florida to dismiss a $10 billion defamation lawsuit that former U.S. President Donald Trump brought against the British broadcaster. Trump sued the BBC over its Panorama documentary, alleging that an edited version of his January 6, 2021 speech misleadingly made it appear he urged supporters to “fight like hell,” and that this harmed his reputation and violated Florida’s deceptive trade practices law. The BBC has apologized for the misleading edit but denies it defamed President Trump, arguing the Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction and that Trump can’t show actual harm, noting he was re-elected despite the broadcast. The broadcaster is also seeking to stay discovery while the dismissal motion is considered; if the case survives, a trial could occur in 2027.

12/25 - A group of authors has filed individual copyright infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of California against several major AI companies, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, xAI, and Perplexity AI, alleging unauthorized copying of their books to train large language models. The plaintiffs—including investigative journalist John Carreyrou—assert that the companies sourced copyrighted works from pirate libraries such as Library Genesis and Z-Library without permission or compensation.

The lawsuits follow the authors’ decision to opt out of a proposed global settlement with Anthropic that would have limited recovery to approximately $3,000 per title. Instead, the plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act, including enhanced damages for willful infringement, and demand individual jury trials.
In emphasizing individual actions rather than a collective class action, the filings reflect the plaintiffs' effort to hold each defendant directly accountable for alleged piracy-based data sourcing and to pursue maximum statutory damages per work under the Copyright Act, setting up a potential test case on the intersection of AI training practices and authors’ rights.

12/18 - President Donald Trump has filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC over a 2024 Panorama documentary that edited his January 6 speech to omit statements urging supporters to act “peacefully,” allegedly creating the false impression that he incited violence. The complaint, filed in federal court in Florida, asserts claims for defamation and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeks both monetary and injunctive relief. The BBC has acknowledged that the omission resulted from an editorial error but disputes that the broadcast was defamatory or actionable. The suit faces significant legal hurdles, including whether U.S. courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign broadcaster, the applicability of U.S. defamation law to a U.K. production, and the heightened “actual malice” standard governing public-figure defamation claims under the First Amendment.

View All

Media Matters

Cameron Stracher, PLLC

Get the Media Matters newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!