Posted on 08/14/2004 9:41:43 PM PDT by LifeTrek
NEW YORK The small Illinois newspaper attempting to get an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for allegedly misusing the paper in "Fahrenheil 9/11" said today it has gotten a rejection notice instead.
The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., disclosed today that New York-based lawyer Devereux Chatillon of the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal sent a letter to the Bloomington attorney representing the newspaper, stating Moore was within his legal right to use one of the newspaper's headlines in the movie and that no "copyright infringement" occurred. He cited several precedents.
This led The Pantagraph to conclude: "Moore apparently is not going to say he's sorry or pay the newspaper's light-hearted, if not symbolic, request for $1 in compensatory damages. But his company's lawyer was willing to spend 37 cents, to send a letter suggesting Moore did little wrong."
That letter claims Moore did nothing "misleading" when a headline from The Pantagraph ("Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election") that originally appeared above a Dec. 5, 2001, letter to the editor was changed in both font and size for the movie and made to look like a news story from the Dec. 19, 2001, edition.
Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph)."
"Baloney," said Pantagraph President and Publisher Henry Bird, in response to the letter. Added newspaper attorney J. Casey Costigan, "I disagree that Michael Moore's use of the headline falls under 'fair use,' and I think the letter also takes what Mr. Moore did out of context."
Bird said he has asked Costigan to send Moore a follow-up letter, asking him to explain why a Pantagraph page was altered without permission.
"Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph)."
He means it did not make any difference to the fabricated propoganda they were trying to create.
I recall some speculation when this apology was first requested that they did it this way so they could rightfully claim they offered Moore a gentlemanly way out. Now that Moore has arrogantly thrown their offer back in their faces they are free to pull out the big guns and get down and dirty. Or do nothing, as the case may be.
Notice how Moore abused a little town paper that probably does not have the money to sue him. Moore is probably one of the most despicable, vile people on the planet. He is more than a jerk. He is also the idol of Hollywood and the Left who see nothing wrong with his tactics.
I am MICHAEL MOORE!!!! And all 156 pounds of me never lies!
The thing is, this newspaper DID carry that headline.
Moore juxtaposed it onto their front page.
However, while Moore was wrong to to that, the newspaper has little room to manoeuvre in terms of saying he manipulated editorial content. They DID carry the headline.
Moore was WRONG to manipulate the weight the newspaper put on the story.
But...the paper, if they feel affronted, shouldn't have ran the story in the first place.
I'm interested in why Moore decided to use a headline from the Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., a relatively obscure paper. Could it be because he knew what he was doing was dishonest, and that a big paper (NY Time, LA Times, Washington Post, etc.) would have the resources and the clout to humiliate him in public and fight him in court for misusing a headline as he did? Just a theory, but it would explain his rather odd choice of source material.
To use that "headline" from the Bloomington Pantagraph means that was probably the only line like that that they could find in the whole country. Then they change its' appearance and date. Makes you wonder what they did for the rest of the movie.
Michael Moore is like a monkey flinging his shit .... what do you expect it's his nature
Moore made a letter to the editor look like a headline??.. let me guess... Gore won in Florida?
No "controlling legal authority"?
Typical lefty, in my opinion, all Marx and no decency.
But the paper wrote the stupid left wing article in the first place. Screw them.
They said it was not a headline, they said it was a title above a letter to the editor. A letter from a reader.
What up fatman?
They should sue him, and demand ALL the profits of the movie . . . and insist that Moore be required to do community service indefinitely . . . working for Weight Watchers.
Bingo
Wasn't it the headline of a letter to the editor? If that's the case, I can't say "screw the paper." After all, papers print letters saying a lot of things I don't agree with, including quite a few screeds from the loony left.
It certainly does!!
Too bad if they don't the resources to sue him. I hope Freepers are adding this to their list of Moore lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.