NBC Warns Celebrity's If They Do a Show on CBS or ABC, Forget the "The Tonight Show"

 Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

NBC is coming down like a hammer on celebs who want to get on Jimmy Fallon's show ... if they dare do a show on CBS or ABC ... they can forget about "The Tonight Show."

Sources connected to CBS, NBC and ABC tell TMZ ... the Peacock network believes Jimmy Fallon's ratings success gives them extreme bargaining power.  They put the word out to celebs, agents and publicists ... if they want to be on Fallon they can't appear on ANY other network ... and not just shows that go head-to-head with Jimmy, but morning shows as well.

We're told NBC is saying the stars who go on Fallon are also allowed to appear on "Today," "Dateline" and any similar shows they air, but that's it. 

A GMA source tells TMZ ... they've already gotten fallout from people they were trying to book.

Fallon is dominating late night .... crushing Jimmy Kimmel by bringing in more than twice the number of viewers.

Source....tmz

Stay Safe Out There - If You Need Help just Give Me a Call!

To schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you, contact Beverly Hills DUI Attorney Jonathan Franklin today.

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600    
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Zimmerman Sues Al Sharpton, NBC, and the Martin Family Attorneys - NBC Edited 911 Call to make it Sound Racist

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

Hear the 911 Call Here....   How NBC Edited Racism Into the George Zimmerman 911 Call

http://youtu.be/72zJvVQWutA

The first claim is likely to be intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). To be successful, Zimmerman will have to show that conduct of Al Sharpton and NBC was so extreme and outrageous that it transcended all bounds of decency; that they acted with either the purpose to cause Zimmerman extreme emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard for Zimmerman's emotional well being, and that Al Sharpton and NBC caused him identifiable emotional damage.Here, Al Sharpton publically claimed that Trayvon Martin was murdered and that George Zimmerman should be arrested for the crime. The ensuing civil unrest and threats of racial violence caused Zimmerman to go into hiding. There is no doubt that crying racism and murder to a group of self-radicalized Black militants is beyond all bounds of decency. Any White peron accused of killing an unarmed Black child because of racism would be terrified of the mob's reaction. If Zimmerman has been treated by a physician for any kind of emotional trauma caused by Sharpton linking him to a murder that never occured, Sharpton's going to be held responsible.

NBC will likely also be found liable to Zimmerman for IIED because a producuer who admittedly altered an audio recording to make it look like Zimmerman harbored racial prejudices against Blacks. The result made all of America believe that George Zimmerman was the most wretched racist on the planet. Again, this sort of behavior is wholly unacceptable in a society that values established due process and the search for the truth. This act, combined with Sharpton's incessant race-baiting no doubt caused Zimmerman intense emotional pain.

The second against Al Sharpton and NBC claim is likely to be twofold- defamation and the invasion of privacy. The common law elements of defamation are 1) a false statement, 2) about or concerning the plaintiff, 3) communicated to a third person, and 4) damage to the plaintiff's reputation. While it's generally held that defamatory speech is slander and written communications are libel, where the speech is recorded and widely available, the proper claim is libel, which is held to be the more serious of the two as video recordings become permanent because they are ubiquitiously reproduced and shared across the Internet via social networking.Clearly, Al Sharpton repeatedly told people that Trayvon Martin was murdered by a racist and that George Zimmerman should be held responsible. As we are finding out, there was no racially motivated murder here. Sharpton's statements on MSNBC and at the numerous rallies he appeared at were patently false, and they were clearly about George Zimmerman. The damage to George Zimmerman's reputation is grave. He's been branded a racist child murder by Sharpton. He had to quit his job and leave his community because of the damage done to his reputation.

While Sharpton's employer, NBC, would normally not be liable for Sharpton's intentional torts, they certainly could be held responsible for his behavior under a negligence theory. If NBC knew, or should've known, that Sharpton's on-air race-baiting and vitriolic conjecture would lead to the destruction of George Zimmerman's reputation, and did nothing to prevent Sharpton from harming Zimmerman, NBC will also be looking at a negligence action.

An invasion of privacy claim will stand against NBC because of the altering of the audio tape. The publication of the audio placing George Zimmerman in a false light that is offensive to a reasonuble perosn under the circumstances, and satisfies the main elements of a false light invasion of privacy claim. Because the producer has reportedly admitted to altering the audio to make the story seem like a hate crime, there will be little problem with establishing intent here. Because this is a story of public interest, Zimmerman will have to show that it was done with malice. What could be more malicious than deliberately portraying someone as a racist child killer without a shred of proof?

The third claim will be against the Martin family attorney whose professional malpractice brought a nation to the precipice of a race riot. It was attorney Benjamin Crump who contacted Al Sharpton. Crump called Sharpton after trying to intimidate Sheriff Lee into arresting Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin. When Crump realized he wasn't going to be able to bring a wrongful death suit against the city or county (his specialty by the way is suing state and local governments), Crump decided to invent a racial controversy in order to force the Sanford Police Department into a settlement. Benjamin Crump manufactured outrage over a hate crime that was itself manufactured. This is negligence of the worst sort. It's willful.

As an attorney, Benjamin Crump has a duty to adhere to the principles of law. If you don't have a merit-based case, the law holds you have no case. It is malpractice to invent knowingly invent one. The harm caused by Crump's breach of duty is mind-numbing. There were death threats to Zimmerman and his family from militant Black racists. There were retalitory killings of White people. All of this on top of the injury to George Zimmerman. He has lost everything for no other reason than a greedy attorney wanted to shake down the police for money. It's shameful. It's this sort of behavior that gives legal professionals a horrible public image. Thanks a bunch Ben.


Source... http://www.examiner.com/article/zimmerman-s-lawsuit-against-al-sharpton-nbc-and-the-martin-family-attorneys

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600   
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Police Claim that NBC's "Stars Earn Stripes" Was Stolen, Judge Says...

Rejecting a motion to dismiss, the judge says he can't conclude at this stage that the military-themed reality TV show isn't substantially similar to the plaintiff's own pitch.

A lawsuit brought by a former New York police detective that alleges that NBC's Stars Earn Stripes was stolen is moving to the next round.

Richard Dillon, who worked for the NYPD for 20 years and has been a consultant on TV shows, brought the lawsuit last November. He came up with an idea for a reality TV show that pitted celebrity contestants against one another in competitive events designed to mimic the training received by Navy SEALs. Among those he's suing for taking his WGA-registered treatment is NBCUniversal and series producers Dick Wolf and Mark Burnett.

The defendants in the lawsuit urged California federal judge James Otero to dismiss various claims on the ground that they had insufficient access to Dillon's treatment and that the material wasn't sufficiently similar to Stars Earn Stripes, but in a ruling on Tuesday, the judge finds enough in the allegations to largely leave the lawsuit intact.
More times than not, federal judges will dismiss idea theft claims because the bar for substantial similarity is high. So it's fairly notable anytime a judge takes the time in a theft case to write a detailed ruling that denies a motion by a major entertainment studio.

Read Full Ruling ...  http://www.scribd.com/doc/149054496/Stars-Stripes

In this case, according to allegations laid out by Judge Otero, Dillon and a co-creator named Jonathan Moss began contacting television producers about their idea. They were referred to David Hurwitz, a producer of reality TV whose previous work includes Fear Factor and who would later be credited with co-creating Stars Earn Stripes.

In August, 2011, a conference call was held and Hurwitz praised Dillon's idea for "Celebrity SEALs." Later, Hurwitz would e-mail Moss and stated, "I look forward to reading the treatment and seeing if we can't make something happen."

More e-mails bounced around and by the end of that month, Hurwitz said he was too busy working on Fear Factor to "do right by you." Hurwitz wished them luck. He's now a co-defendant in this lawsuit.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-allows-cops-claim-nbcs-572628

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600   
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Joe Paterno Family Files Lawsuit Against NCAA

It appears we're about to see another dramatic twist in the convoluted Jerry Sandusky scandal. An NBC Sports executive tells StateCollege.com that the Paterno family is filing a lawsuit against the NCAA.

That revelation comes as NBC Sports commentator Bob Costas takes another look at the controversial Freeh report.

"(The Freeh Report) will be the focus of Costas Tonight according to Adam Freifeld, a vice president of communications for NBC Sports. He says the show was taped Tuesday and will air Wednesday at 11 p.m. on NBCSN, following an NHL hockey playoff game.

Freifeld says the Costas show will include appearances by Wick Sollers, the Paterno family attorney; former U.S. Attorney General and Gov. of Pennsylvania, Dick Thornburgh; and Dan McGinn, a Paterno family spokesperson.

"They will be announcing a new lawsuit against the NCAA on behalf of the Paternos, several Penn State trustees, faculty, former players and coaches." says Freifeld. That has not been confirmed by outside sources. Freifeld did not explain what the Paterno's are asking for in their lawsuit.

StateCollege.com left messages for Wick Sollers and the Paterno family but those messages were not immediately returned.

In a statement released Wednesday afternoon, university spokesperson David La Torre says, "The university is not a party to any lawsuit against the NCAA that may be filed by the Paterno family. Penn State remains committed to full compliance with the consent decree and the athletics integrity agreement. We look forward to continuing to work with Sen. George Mitchell and recognize the important role that intercollegiate athletics provides for our student athletes and the wider university community."

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett is already suing the NCAA. Corbett claims the sanctions will have a negative effect on the economy. The university is also not a part of that legal action.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, was hired by Penn State's Board of Trustees after the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse case exploded into the national consciousness. Sandusky, once the football team's beloved defensive coordinator, was eventually convicted for sexually abusing several children.

In his report, Judge Freeh was highly critical of Penn State leaders. He blamed them for a conspiracy of silence. Freeh singled out the actions former president Graham Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley, former administrator Gary Schultz and former head football coach Joe Paterno.

Spanier, Curley and Schultz were later charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and endangering the welfare of a child, in part because of information contained in the Freeh report.

Critics charge there was a rush to judgement and that important pieces of the puzzle were omitted. Spanier, Curley and Schultz were never interviewed by investigators involved in putting the report together.

Former governor Dick Thornburgh was part of a group hired by the Paternos to examine the Freeh report. "It's incomplete. It's full of inaccuracies," Thornburgh said of the Freeh report, last February. "Much was overlooked, much was misrepresented and the fact is, it really isn't deserving of the basis for action that was insinuated by the NCAA."

The NCAA used the Freeh report to justify serious sanctions against Penn State. Those sanctions include a $60 million fine, scholarship reductions and a four year bowl ban.

Read More... http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/paterno-family-reported-to-be-filing-lawsuit-against-ncaa-1315793/

A Group of Broadcasters (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in Washington DC against a similar outfit to Aereo that is also offering re-transmission services to consumers.

Fox Television is going to war with Barry Diller, the man who helped found the network. On Thursday, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, and several other television broadcasters filed two major copyright infringement lawsuits against Aereo, a service that's planning to launch in the New York area on March 14th to allow consumers the ability to watch broadcast television online through digital streaming.

Aereo announced it had raised $20.5 million in venture funding at a news conference last month.

In making the announcement of the forthcoming launch, Diller, who joined Aereo's board after his company IAC/InterActiveCorp provided major financial backing, told reporters that Aereo "pries over-the-air broadcast television out of [a] closed system.”

The broadcasters allege that the Aereo service infringes upon the copyright protection afforded to the content of broadcasters’ television programming.  In one lawsuit filed in New York federal court last week, the broadcasters say that the $12-a-month service will “provide unlimited streams of Plaintiffs’ television broadcasts over the Internet in direct competition with Plaintiffs.”  The broadcasters’ complaint also alleges “[c]opyright law does not permit Aereo to appropriate to itself the value of Plaintiffs’ television programming by retransmitting over the Internet without proper licenses” and “simply put, Aereo is an unauthorized Internet delivery service that is receiving, converting and retransmitting broadcast signals to its subscribers for a fee.” The broadcasters claim that statutory definitions and interpretations of a “public performance” render Aereo’s service impermissible as copyright infringement.  Currently, one group of broadcasters including Fox, Telemundo, and PBS, represented by Steven Fabrizio at Jenner & Block, is seeking a permanent injunction and statutory damages against Aereo. Another set of broadcasters including CBS, NBC, and ABC, represented by Bruce Keller at Debevoise & Plimpton, is after pretty much the same thing, though the cases are likely to be consolidated.

Broadcasters are not unfamiliar with battling companies that offer digital streaming services. In 2010, the same major broadcasters sued streaming television companies FilmOn and ivi, and were granted injunctions against both services.  Ivi’s strategy utilized Section 111 of the Copyright Act, which authorizes cable TV companies to make secondary transmissions of copyrighted works embodied in primary transmissions so long as a nominal statutory licensing fee is paid.  The Judge rejected this argument, holding “[n]o technology . . . has been allowed to take advantage of Section 111 to retransmit copyrighted programming to a national audience while not complying with the rules and regulations of the FCC and without consent of the copyright holder.”  Ivi has appealed this judgment, arguing that it only needed to pay a compulsory license fee.  The appeal will be heard at the 2nd Circuit later in March.  Broadcasters have well-founded reasons to fear the threat posed by startups like Aereo – Deloitte’s 6th edition of its report The State of the Media Democracy and other sources report a long term trend of increased “cord-cutting,” a term that refers to the choice by consumers to unsubscribe from cable services in favor of accessing programming content online.  Although current statistics are not dispositive, the proliferation of websites like Hulu has increased the usage of digital streaming services, especially for video content.

Aereo defends its service stating, “[c]onsumers are legally entitled to access broadcast television via an antenna and they are entitled to record television content for their personal use. Innovations in technology over time, from digital signals to Digital Video Recorders (“DVRs”), have made access to television easier and better for consumers. Aereo provides technology that enables consumers to use their cloud DVR and their remote antenna to record and watch the broadcast television signal to which they are entitled anywhere they are, whether on a phone, a tablet, a television or a laptop.”  The district court judge in the ivi case noted that when Congress enacted Section 111, it was doing so with an “understanding of the cable industry as a highly localized medium” and ivi’s service, in contrast, ”retransmits broadcast signals nationwide, rather than [to] specific local areas.” Alternatively, because Aereo is offering its initial service next month in New York, before expanding “a step at a time, a market at a time,” the company may avoid the pitfalls ivi encountered.  The Aereo lawsuit has the potential to provide substantive implications for the future of the Internet TV business and cord-cutting trend in the broadcast television industry.

Read More... http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/03/09/cord-cutting-culprit-fox-television-and-major-broadcasters-claim-aereo-broadcast-streaming-service-infringes-programming-copyrights/ 
and
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/aereo-barry-diller-stream-tv-online-296426

Lawsuit Filed Online-Only Soap Ads Won't Air

Producers behind the revived "All My Children" and "One Life to Live" hoped to buy ad time during broadcast soaps, but CBS and NBC refused to help tout the competition and ABC has since filed a lawsuit over one spot.

anceled TV soaps All My Children and One Life to Live are being revived online beginning April 29 by producer Prospect Park, but don't look for ads touting them on the major broadcast networks. Sources tells CBS, NBC and even ABC, which licensed the shows for a web revival, won't be running spots for the shows.

CBS, which has run ads for digital outlets Netflix and Hulu (which is distributing the revived soaps), declined comment. But a source tells THR the network views the digital re-launch as a direct competitor to its popular daytime dramas, including The Bold and the Beautiful.

NBC also declined to comment as did Prospect Park. However, a source says NBC refused to carry ads during its only remaining daytime soap, Days of Our Lives. The network was open to primetime spots, which Prospect Park declined to pursue. NBC did, however, sell ads on several of its cable networks.

A source close to the network said Prospect Park's buying agency made a preliminary request for information on budgets and availability, but never followed up. That source insists NBC never turned them down for ads because there was never any actual request, and no creative work related to possible ads was ever shown to them for approval by their standards and practices department (which would be necessary before they an ad could run).

If that sounds like as much of a soap opera as the shows themselves, it is just the beginning. The real drama  has been between Prospect Park and ABC.

ABC licensed AMC and OLTL to Prospect Park, run by Jeff Kwatinetz and Rich Frank, in a deal sources say is worth more than $8 million a year to the network, plus an annual royalty. The relationship hasn't gone smoothly, as Prospect revealed in a $25 million lawsuit filed April 18. The suit claims ABC breached its contract by failing to cooperate on the relaunch and by improperly using performers on General Hospital that were to be shared.

One of those actors is Roger Howarth, who played Todd Manning on the old OLTL. With Prospect's permission, he played the same character beginning in March 2012 on ABC's General Hospital but eventually was killed off. GH now plans to bring him back as another character, while he also is set to co-star in the revived OLTL.

Meanwhile, Horwath also shot scenes in Connecticut for the revival of OLTL as Manning. Those scenes will be parceled out throughout the first season.

ABC sources say the network was willing to accept ads within GH because of the licensing relationship, but on April 17 when Prospect submitted an ad for OLTL that included Howarth prominently. ABC refused it -- on the grounds that it would confuse the audience.

Prospect, after spending considerable time preparing the ad, balked at making changes shortly before it was to run. They did not want to take Howarth out of the ad and, already upset about its dealings with ABC, filed suit the next day.

Notes analyst Brad Adgate of Horizon Media: "The overriding reason to refuse is if they think it's a threat or something that's going to siphon off viewers from them, then they don’t think whatever they charge them would be worth it "

The CW Network did accept ads for the online soaps, which began running in such shows as Heart of Dixie and 90210 last week. Fox, according to a source, also was open to running the ads, but Prospect Park decided against running ads there because the network has only primetime programming and no history with soap operas.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/all-my-children-oltl-ads-444816

NBC Universal sued by an Ex-"Law & Order" Staffer

Colorist Charlotte Grau seeks more than $5 million, alleging that she was fired after she complained about mistreatment and took leave to fight breast cancer.

A female post-production employee who worked on NBC’s Law & Order: Special Victims Unit has sued the network's owner and several executives behind the series, claiming she was fired after complaining about sex discrimination and taking time off to seek treatment for breast cancer.

Charlotte Grau, who says she had 27 years of experience as a colorist in Hollywood when she was terminated in May 2012 after seven years with NBC Universal, claims in a lawsuit filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court that she was routinely mistreated by NBCU employees, paid less in overtime than male colleagues, told that her work was inferior and physically assaulted by a male superior.

She's seeking at least $5 million in damages on claims of sex discrimination, battery, assault, defamation and gender violence, among others. Defendants are NBC Universal, Universal Studios and former owner Vivendi, as well as individuals Mike Daruty, Robin Wilson, Nate Fitzgerald, Kip Sears, Ron Silveira, Arthur Forney, Scott Garrow, Harvey Landy, Dean Winger and Susan Gosstrom

Read full complaint... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/bc503054.pdf

"[NBC] Universal was intentionally failing to prevent or remedy the sexual harassment of female employees by male employees," the lawsuit states. Grau "was routinely treated differently and less favorably than her male counterparts at Universal."

She claims the campaign to denigrate and discredit her went on for years.

"Because of [Grau’s] solid reputation in the industry, it took a long time to erode [Grau’s] standing with clients," the complaint alleges.

Grau also alleges that L&O: SVU executive producer Forney hit her forcefully in the back after giving her a hug, conduct she found abusive and reported to her superiors. "Universal was unconcerned that a client was physically abusing [Grau]," the complaint states.

Then, when Grau was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011, she took a three-month leave from SVU for treatment. When she returned, she says she was removed from SVU without explanation. She says she overheard two Universal employees complaining that she "never finishes her work, and when she does it takes her longer than 'the boys,'" the lawsuit states.

Grau was reassigned to NBC’s Grimm but claims the production staff made it difficult to do her job, denying needed training and blaming her for technical difficulties. In May 2012, she was told she was being laid off because there was no work for her. "In reality, Universal terminated [Grau] in retaliation for [her] reports of verbal abuse, harassment, disparate treatment, and the exercise of [her] protected rights, including the right to take medical leave for her own serious health condition, among other things," the complaint alleges.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/law-order-staffer-sues-nbc-429182

 

Lawsuit Claims SyFy's 'Face Off' Stolen From Pitch Meeting

SyFy and owner NBC Universal were sued Friday by a production company that claims it pitched a show on make-up artists but the network took the idea and instead created the hit reality series Face Off.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges breach of implied-in-fact contract, breach of confidence, unfair competition and other charges.

Read Full Complaint.... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/SyFy.pdf

The Results Group, which formerly was known as Studio City, says that in May 2009 a meeting was arranged by an agent at William Morris to pitch a make-up competition show hosted by a female actor. It centered around a $100,000 prize.

The pitch meeting with SyFy allegedly was attended by an executive from The Results Group, a producer it brought in, a consultant and its agent. After the meeting, Results Group allegedly was told the network had decided not to pursue a TV series based on its idea and materials.

When the company learned SyFy was doing a similar series, it asked for evidence the series was not copied from the pitch. In response, SyFy allegedly provided documents that said Face Off had been planned prior to the pitch meeting. When the show debuted on SyFy in January 2011, the Results executives felt what they saw was very much like what they pitched. In the first episode, contestants had to make up models to look like either a beetle, an ostrich or an elephant. The suit says that conceit was substantially similar to the show that was pitched.

The suit seeks damages to cover the lost credit and producing fees, the cost of the suit and other punitive damages to be determined by a judge. Results Group also wants any money the network made off the show.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/lawsuit-claims-syfys-face-stolen-415602