He may be funny, but talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel is no mensch.
Kimmel swiped a YouTube video of a ranting Hasidic man and spliced it into a skit to poke fun at hoops superstar LeBron James without permission, according to a suit filed yesterday in Brooklyn Supreme Court.
Jimmy Kimmel Sued over YouTube Clip of Hasidic Man
He may be funny, but talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel is no mensch.
Kimmel swiped a YouTube video of a ranting Hasidic man and spliced it into a skit to poke fun at hoops superstar LeBron James without permission, according to a suit filed yesterday in Brooklyn Supreme Court.
Dovid Sondik was featured in the YouTube video, titled the “Flying Rabbi,” which shows the Borough Park man raving in Yiddish in the street.
In August, “Jimmy Kimmel Live” grabbed snippets of that video to pretend its host was getting advice from the man.
The bit spoofed James’ recent sit-down with rabbi-to-the-stars Yishayahu Yosef Pinto.
“See, now it makes sense, LeBron went to Miami to become Jewish,” Kimmel joked as he set up the spoof.
“Apparently, [Pinto is] a very high-paid consultant when it comes to business matters. One time, I actually consulted with the rabbi myself.”
In the skit, Sondik is then seen hooting incoherently in Yiddish, framed to look as if he were talking to Kimmel through a car window.
Kimmel, who re-upped his contract with ABC yesterday for two years, pretends he’s getting sage advice, saying, “Yeah, that’s true,” as Sondik continues his rant.
The scene cuts back and forth between them and the bit ends with Kimmel joking, “You know, it turned out he was right.”
Sondik’s lawyer, Robert Tolchin, said the man was just “goofing around” when he made the video and never meant it to be broadcast to Kimmel’s 1.5 million viewers.
“It has caused me difficulty and pain,” said Sondik, who, though not a rabbi, would speak of scripture to people in the neighborhood. “Now they think I’m a joke, a comedian.”
The suit, seeking unspecified damages, accuses Kimmel of appropriation of likeness and violating YouTube’s service terms.
A rep said Kimmel’s people were unaware of the suit.
Sara
Dovid is Really a special man who is quite emesdik. He spends half his time is Tzfas.
Sara
Dovid is REALLY a special man who is Very emesdik. He spends half his time in Tzfas.
Law Student Says....
What a JOKE! What expectation of privacy does Mr. Sondik have when there are already several videos of him with his rants on Youtube?
What intention of solitude or seclusion can Mr Sondik demonstrate, when his videos are all over the internet, and as such, are potentially available to billions of people?
Mr. Sondik…… if you want to make money….. GET A JOB!
tipshim
now that’s the answer that i was looking for. welcome our new commanding officer to the 71 pct.
Milhouse
#3, what has expectation of privacy got to do with this? Kimmel had no right to take Mr Sondik’s video and use it on his show, without his permission (for which he should expect to pay).
Law student who knows what he is talking
Dear Law Student,
Please call each of your professors and tell them they have failed you.
There are four types of privacy rights, only one of which is intrusion upon seclusion. Another, which is what Sondik is uing for, is appropriation of one’s name or likeness for commercial purposes. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 652A-652I; William Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L.Rev. 383 (1960).
There are a host of other causes of action in which plaintiffs have succeeded, including the right of publicity (the right to exploit your own likeness for commercial purposes), defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Here’s to litigating against you one day knowing that you are unprepared!
Best regards,
Nemo
just saying
that clip was hilarious
Another law student says
This suit is probably over being “cast in a false light”. It’s not about “intrusion”. Intrusion wont work anyway because he is not in is “private corner of the world”. It may hurt his defense if he already has many videos of him ranting, however, Kimmel intentionally made this video to make him look crazy when he may not be. His other rants may not make him look crazy like this one did. He may have a good case..
YL
Same law student says
Additionally, just because there are already vidoes of him on youtube does not mean he’s not entitled to privacy and would not have a lawsuit. #1. He may not have been aware of those vidoes. #2. Even if he knew about the vidoes it probably wouldn’t matter. When Kimmel broadcasted it on his network, millions of people saw the video, people who did not know he was messing around. He could argue that the only people who saw the video before kimmel posted it were people who knew what to search for and knew he was joking. When I saw the video, I personally thought the guy was a crack. He probably has a case.
Yl
Same law student says
Hey Nemo,
You’re wrong about the “appropriation” lawsuit. In order to be liable, you must use the person’s information to “promote” a good or service. Jimmy wasn’t promoting anything, he was making a joke video. You are right about the Emotional distress suit, though :).
Yl
Yet another law student
Dear Nemo,
I guess you can call your professor and tell him you failed as well. YL is right. The appropriation law suit only works if someone uses another’s information to promote a product or service. A mere usage for fun is no issue. Be easy on the first guy, especially when you don’t really know what you’re talking about either.
Nemo
Geez, let’s all gang up on Nemo because he called out the guy who after a couple law school courses thought he/she was smarter than whatever attorney filed this suit (who surely brought it on frivolous grounds) and didn’t even read the second to last paragraph of the article. Better yet, let’s call Nemo out with patently false information and further demonstrate our ignorance ….
Comment b to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C makes plain that appropriation of a likeness need not be done for commercial, much less advertising, purposes. In its entirety:
“b. How invaded. The common form of invasion of privacy under the rule here stated is the appropriation and use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness to advertise the defendant’s business or product, or for some similar commercial purpose. Apart from statute, however, the rule stated is not limited to commercial appropriation. It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one. Statutes in some states have, however, limited the liability to commercial uses of the name or likeness.”
Nemo
Follow up: New York Civil Rights Law § 51 gives a cause of action for “[a]ny person whose name, portrait [fig 1] , picture or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade.” However, the statute does not expressly abrogate a common law cause of action for appropriation for non-commercial cases, allowing it survive. It is a constitutional right in New York to bring a common law appropriation lawsuit.
See Nader v General Motors Corp. (1968) 57 Misc 2d 301, 292 NYS2d 514, affd (1969, 1st Dept) 31 App Div 2d 392, 298 NYS2d 137, affd (1970) 25 NY2d 560, 307 NYS2d 647, 255 NE2d 765.
Another Law Student
To all you law students out there, you guys ought to all be failed. You’re providing advice/mentoring without charging any fees. Shame on your profession.
Law Professor
Using the video as part of a show can be captured under promoting product or service, to wit, the show. Now go back to cheder.
Law Student
Dear Law professor,
According to you, every person whose name is mentioned in any magazine article will have an “appropriation” lawsuit. Now go back to law school.
Med Student
There is a guy sitting at a bar who exclaimed: “All lawyers are jerks.” A man nearby hollers, “Hey! I take offense to that!”
“Why,” the instigator sneered, “Are you a lawyer?”
“No, I’m a jerk!”
Milhouse
#16, You idiot, a person does not own his name; he does own publicity rights in his likeness. This person’s picture was not incidental to the clip; it was deliberately introduced in order to make money for the network and the host, and it was done without permission. That’s appropriation of likeness; it’s also breach of copyright (and no, it was not fair use, at least under the 2 Live Crew test).