Almost equivalent to shunning: OJ's Book Cancelled

[mini]

<p>Sorry. That is correct.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>The Goldmans haven’t collected a penny apparently of the civil judgement.</p>

<p>This was reported earlier this month
<a href=“http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15914630.htm[/url]”>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15914630.htm&lt;/a&gt;

SANTA MONICA, Calif. - O.J. Simpson has won a legal battle against the father of a murder victim who had sought control of the former football star’s publicity rights to help satisfy a judgment in a wrongful death lawsuit.</p>

<p>Superior Court Judge Linda Lefkowitz rejected Fred Goldman’s petition, determining such a move would harm a living celebrity’s privacy rights “which mitigate against court-enforced transfer of the (publicity) right to obtain commercial profit from his or her likeness.”</p>

<p>A call to O.J. Simpson was not immediately returned Thursday. His attorney praised the judge’s decision.</p>

<p>“There has never been a case in the U.S. where a judge has involuntarily taken somebody’s identity rights,” attorney Yale Galanter said in a telephone interview from Florida. “If she did, the Goldmans would be able to speak on behalf of O.J. Simpson. They’d be able to use his image without his approval.”</p>

<p>Goldman’s attorney said he was disappointed by the judge’s ruling, which was issued Tuesday.</p>

<p>“This is but another chapter in the long story of the Goldman family’s search for justice against O.J. Simpson, a story that is far from over,” attorney Jonathan Polak said, adding an appeal will be filed.</p>

<p>Simpson was acquitted in a criminal trial of the 1994 murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. However, Simpson was later found liable in 1997 in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Goldman family.</p>

<p>In September, Fred Goldman asked the court to grant him the rights to Simpson’s name, image and likeness to cover the damage award.</p>

<p>Goldman contended Simpson was making money from appearances and autograph signings that should be used to satisfy the wrongful death judgment he estimated at $38 million in damages and interest. During an Oct. 17 hearing, he said he was offended upon learning that Simpson made an appearance at a “slasher” convention.</p>

<p>“Mr. Simpson has, in fact, exploited his fame by such ghoulish activities as appearing at a ‘slasher’ convention which exhibited videos and other forms of communication glorifying acts of violence not dissimilar from those which caused the death of plaintiff’s son,” Lefkowitz wrote. “But to base transfer of the right of publicity … raises substantial procedural - if not constitutional issues - involving due process rights.”</p>

<p>Galanter disputed Goldman’s characterization of the event.</p>

<p>“He was hired to make an appearance at a card signing, and that’s what it was,” Galanter said.

</p>

[Hanna]

<p>I understand why the judge didn’t transfer the actual rights, but why couldn’t she attach the income OJ gets from his exercise of those rights, or at least a portion of that income? How would that be different from attaching his wages if he had a regular job?</p>

[katliamom]

<p>OJ was already paid, apparently as much as 3 million dollars. </p>

<p>FOX didn’t pull the interview because of taste. They pulled it because advertisers were bailing. Without advertising, Nielsen wouldn’t have tracked viewership so even if the interview got historic ratings, it would be a moot point. </p>

<p>Murdoch, who owns the publishing co, will lose the money on books already sold/published. Will it hurt Regan books? Maybe, maybe not: she’s made Murdoch a lot of money in the past.</p>

[conyat]

<p>^ Katliamom, $3 million? It’s appalling that anyone would give OJ that kind of money for talking about the murders, especially knowing that the Goldmans would never see a dime.</p>

<p>It’s disgusting that Fox would want to air a project that glorifies, even rewards, domestic violence and spouse abuse.</p>