An edited version. Reporters are well known for editing both video and audio recordings to fit a narrative.
My (limited) (High School edumacartion only and that 46 years ago now…) understanding is that the plaintiff has to articulate a “loss” other than “they made a lot of money using my name and the words that I uttered, and I now want some of that money”. There is no “injury” beyond Mister Trump being “miffed”. Dem’s da rules. Since like, forever, I think it stems from Common Law, (but agin, IANAL).
Thanks for yer 2¢, but I think you might not have all those legal bits & pieces of info, perfectly sorted. If someone took pictures of you, and wanted to publish them, in a book, they would need, I believe, to get you to sign a release-- even though publishing them, would not, let's assume, cause you any "harm." Maybe the loss of any income that you could have received, as a share of profits, could constitute your "damages." The claim, essentially, would be that you had been cheated out of receiving a fair value, for your material/work contribution. The exact requirements for a plaintiff vary, depending on jurisdiction, the type of case, and even between different courts, in the same jurisdiction. Trump's case, I believe, would be a breach of contract case. Just the fact that Trump was the source of the material, I think makes him entitled to some share of the profit from any book in which they are, at least, the major source of material-- unless Trump signed away those rights. One would have to think that Simon & Schuster, probably know what they're doing, regarding these sorts of contracts; unless, as I'd said, this is a rather unique case, with not much in the way of precedent, to go on.
It wouldn’t take much effort to take something out of context simply by deleting portions from the final version of the interviews.
Absolutely. Sometimes it's just a word or two, and the original context is gone. Of course, Trump's legal team will have to prove their allegations. The complaint accuses Woodward of "systematic usurpation, manipulation, and exploitation of audio". According to Trump, Woodward violated Trump's contractual rights and copyright interests. Shouldn't be hard to prove IF Woodward has nothing substantial to prove otherwise. Btw, I'm convinced that most who are replying haven't bothered to even read the complaint that both you and I have posted to the thread to keep the actual complaint in context.
Oh it would be stipulated in the contract just like releasing a CD and then allowing streaming. Have to see the contract here.
@Overitall On January 30th, Truth Social Trump on Twitter: "….Woodward and his corporate bosses not only tried to profiteer from doctoring tapes, which were only to be used for the “written word,” namely help in accuracy for his book. This was an open and blatant attempt to make me look as bad as possible. They have instead been exposed" / Twitter
My pov has completely changed after reading the complaint. I agree with you that we need to see a contract.
He'll show that in the trial if it gets there. Here is your copy of the text so you can read what he is saying for yourself https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/trump-v-woodward.pdf
I don’t know if this lawsuit will grow legs but I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it. Never in my wild imagination would I believe someone would win a lawsuit from carelessly spilling hot coffee on herself, but it’s a weird world.
I have to say this doesn’t make Trump look very bright. I’m still scratching my head wondering why he would ever agree to the interview with Woodward.
. . . why do you think that it is okay to serve coffee so hot that it causes third degree burns if it actually comes into contact with human skin? The world in which that is acceptable is far more "weird" and far more careless. You do realize that this makes it unsafe to drink, right? But, hey, I guess it is "weird" to order a drink that you think is safe to . . . ****ing drink?
You can read Trump's public filing for yourself where they detail it I am not here as his attorney or spokesperson. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/trump-v-woodward.pdf