Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev
You are correct, it will likely cause her issues getting future work. There are obviously things that are not in the article, and obviously neither of us has read the contract. But if it is a memoir, and she is supplying the writing, and he is supplying the story and his name, and there was a verbal agreement that he got final say, he has the right to not have his name used in a defamatory manner. Hypothetically, if she was to publish the book without his consent, what is to stop him from sueing for libel? Mediation is likely the best course of action, but I don't begruge Lanny at all for wanting control of the way that he is being represented. Also, based on the article, it seems as though his expectation that the book was going to be about life after hockey, as per his claims. If he is making the claim that is not the case, how would it seem to you that he was involved every step of the way? I would imagine that he was involved in the story telling, and the finished work was somewhat different then his expectation, and if that's the case, he has every right to not want his name associated with it. Again, I'm no lawyer, nor do I claim to be, but I think controlling his image is right and fair. My issue isn't with her being owed something, but her trying to sue to have her work about another individual published without his consent is wrong. Especially since it is supposed to be a memoir from his prospective, that he no longer endorses.
|
Well, I am a lawyer and I can tell you whatever his rights are, they are spelled out in the contract, which, according to the reports, doesn’t give him an unlimited right to withhold consent.
Whether his refusal has a reasonable basis is up to the arbitrator. I do know one thing - if it was never spelled out that this was supposed to be a book solely a bop out post-hockey activities, that won’t be a reasonable excuse. And I very much doubt McLellan-Day would have agreed to that stipulation because that just isn’t a book that would sell. Frankly, if I was to guess, he’s made up that excuse as cover for the real reason - that it isn’t a pure hagiography.