"Libel Lawsuit for Illustration Is Ground Rarely Walked"
NY Times (9/27/04)
Suing a cartoonist is rare because their work is seen as satirical versus factual and more often than not involves persons deemed public figures.
In this case, Conrad M. Black, a Canadian media magnate and former CEO of Hollinger International (now the Sun-Times Media Group), sued Barry Blitt for illustrating Lord Black arriving in hell for an article in Toronto Life entitled "A Toast to Lord Black on His Arrival in Hell." Lord Black sought 1.6 million U.S. dollars in damages arguing that Blitt's "illustration implied that Lord Black's conversion to Catholicism was a sham and that he was so irredeemably evil that he belonged in hell."
In the U.S., Black would be considered a public figure and therefore not qualify to file suit for defamation. But, in Canada the public figure rule for libel does not apply. According to this article, the plaintiff must prove that most average people would take the defendant's illustration as a statement of fact versus opinion.
Do you think that cartoonist/illustrators should be fair game for libel suits in some cases? When they've gone maybe a bit too far?
3 comments:
I think that cartoonists could be held libel, if they truly damage someone’s reputation with untrue facts. However, this would be very hard to prove, as the article stated. In this case, the illustration looks clearly like a satirical comment and not a libel case.
Cartoonists are doing parodies! Although if the facts stated in the cartoon or caption are untrue, maybe there would be a case, I cannot imagine that cartoonists could be held libel. I'd like to know if any illustrators or cartoonists have historically been held libel--I couldn't find a case in Lexis. Christy
If the facts cited in the cartoon are in fact fictional and damaging to the person's reputation, they might have a good case for libel. But I believe the good majority of people do not take cartoons seriouslym as they are parodies.
Post a Comment