Trump sues journalist Bob Woodward

Read the complaint. There is a big difference between using information from the tapes to compose a book, to which Trump agreed to than taking the raw interview tapes and selling them outright to the public as an audio book. In the complaint, it proves that Trump did not agree to the latter.

Page 17 and 18 of the complaint:

55. Paramount, SSI, and Woodward deviated from industry standard practices, did not obtain the requisite releases, misappropriated President Trump’s copyright interests, manipulated the recordings to benefit Woodward’s desired narrative while peddling the story that the recordings Case 3:23-cv-02333-RV-ZCB Document 1 Filed 01/30/23 Page 17 of 31 18 are “raw,” and deprived President Trump of the opportunity to publish or not to publish his words, read in his voice.

56. It seems that in the view of the Defendants, the only way to rectify the failure of Rage was for experienced publishers and authors to throw their values to the wind and trample on established rights for the sake of profit. Woodward was not telling anything new; it was who was doing the telling that made the difference.

57. Accordingly, President Trump has been harmed.

58. Published sources indicate that the Fear sold more than two (2) million copies, which is the amount of copies that the Audiotape can be estimated to sell. Based upon the purchase price of the Audiotape, $24.99, the damages President Trump has sustained due to the actions of the Defendants as set forth herein are estimated to be at least $49,980,000.00, exclusive of punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

 

Trump was President, you can't copyright the words of a President to a reporter

 

That sums it up.

 

Petulent lawsuit to be sure, but at this point Woodward should have known better than to leave himself open to a butthurt Trump doing what he always does. There's nothing even remotely surprising about Trump's actions here and Woodward should have seen it coming.

 

You didn't read the entire complaint, did you?

Woodward was not acting like a reporter when taping Trump.
Go back to the drawing board.

 

Trump was the President, talking about his Presidential duties, sorry, not copy writable

he was a historian, writing about the actions of a President, in the President's own words

 

Rather Trump should have known better than to leave himself open to Woodward's deceit. Who sold the tapes without obtaining Trump's permission to do so?

Woodward agreed to using information from the taped interviews to compose a book only. Selling the tapes outright and unaltered, wasn't ever a part of their deal.

Read the complaint.

 

Read the complaint instead of manufacturing a narrative.

You are winging this and so, this is where I wish you to enjoy the rest of your day.

 

This is what I mean. Woodward should have known Trump would sue him after he released the tapes, because Trump sues everybody. There is nothing surprising about Trump's actions here.

 

the complaint is bogus imo, that is the point

we will see though, let's watch where the case goes from here

 

The person who creates the tapes normally has the copyright interest in them. So that would be Woodward.

 

Care to provide a source for your claim above?

 

The complaint is clear to say that Trump agreed to record his exchanges with Woodward for the "sole purpose of Woodward being able to write a single book." He did not give Woodward the permission to sell the tapes.

 

the complaint says that, where is the proof in writing?

that the President used his position of authority to decide what words of a President could or could not be used for what?

remember, these are the words of a sitting President about his duties as President

 

That’s my understanding of copyright law. It is obviously Woodward’s understanding as well, because he sold copies. It was his right to make and sell copies. Hence copy right.

 

Oh, I totally agree. Let's propose it to both parties.

 

The use of a recording and keep in mind that only one party has to agree / be aware of it and Trump agreed to the recorting, is not governed by any agreement(s).

 

When a reporter (Woodward) tells someone they are speaking "on the record," then all said material is pen to be in the public record. I would be very surprised
if Trump wins this one.

 

Not entirely correct. It depends on copyright laws which in the cases of interviews isn't black and white.

who-owns-an-interview-insights-into-copyright-cases

If Trump can prove he didn't give permission for an audio book, he might be able to win.

 

Irrelevant.

 

If I may add to it, what would be the odds that a publisher and a journalist were not aware of the legalities of using these recordings? I woudl say that their legal team is far more aware that is fine than whatever local ambulance chasing Saul Goodman Trump managed to convince to file this.

 

Reading the piece from your link, it looks to me as pretty black and white. Trump's suit is just the typical method he employs when he dislikes something, with or without reason. It has been made very clear that the recordings were being made for a book. That it became an audio book only complicated matters for Trump because he can not deny or claim misrepresentation of what he said.
Bob Woodward has been around and seen and done a lot and is not the kind of guy who does not cross his Tees and dots the Is.

 

Then he (and the publishers) have nothing to be troubled about. How soon do you think they will countersue?

 

This will go nowhere. Bob Woodard interviewed Trump and Trump voluntarily gave that information. This won't even meet the smell test in the Sullivan vs NYT case.

 

Trump's not suing for defamation.