Post by Jemma on Jun 3, 2009 6:23:56 GMT -5
The 'CSI' Franchise Case File: Couple vs Writer, or When Those Similarities Aren't Coincidential
It's another week, and what I thought would be some serious downtime isn't turning out to be just that. The biggest news in CSI this week is, well, a lawsuit filed against the producers! Sure you've heard of this, but I'll have my own take on this later. Also on this week's case file, Delko talks about girlfriend materials, and Mac talks about why he's happy with having a secure job in New York
Item one: One writer for defamation, please. At the end of each television show, usually, there's this notice that goes, "any similarities towards actual people are coincidental", but what if it actually isn't? That's what a couple based in Los Angeles accuse a CSI writer of; they filed a lawsuit against her, early in the week, accusing her of patterning two shady characters in an episode after them.
Melinda and Scott Tamkin, who work as real estate agents, are seeking $6 million in damages against writer Sarah Goldfinger, alleging that she named two characters in an episode of the show after them, in revenge for a real estate deal that went wrong. Apparently, the accused wanted to buy a home from the Tamkins in 2005, but she pulled out of the sale when it was in escrow.
The episode in question? Last season's "Deep Fried & Minty Fresh", otherwise known as the episode with a big chicken statue falling through a window. The focus, however, is in the secondary case, that of a real estate agent named Melinda, who was found dead while cuffed to her bed, and her husband, Scott, who was suspected of killing her. (Turns out she committed suicide after ingesting too much toothpaste.)
The Tamkins argue that those characters were named after her, alleging that an original script for the episode saw them have the last name Tamkin; it was later replaced by Tucker, which they think is proof that Goldfinger took inspiration from them. They also insist that the writer helped in casting actors who look like the real life couple.
A lawyer for the couple insists that the episode has hurt their real estate business; clients could have been deterred from making business with them after seeing press releases for the episode, which were issued months before the episode aired in February.
I can't help but think it's paranoia, although they do have a point. We'll see...
Item two: One character for longevity, please.
Item three: One more character for... a Jennifer Lopez look-a-like?
Item one: One writer for defamation, please. At the end of each television show, usually, there's this notice that goes, "any similarities towards actual people are coincidental", but what if it actually isn't? That's what a couple based in Los Angeles accuse a CSI writer of; they filed a lawsuit against her, early in the week, accusing her of patterning two shady characters in an episode after them.
Melinda and Scott Tamkin, who work as real estate agents, are seeking $6 million in damages against writer Sarah Goldfinger, alleging that she named two characters in an episode of the show after them, in revenge for a real estate deal that went wrong. Apparently, the accused wanted to buy a home from the Tamkins in 2005, but she pulled out of the sale when it was in escrow.
The episode in question? Last season's "Deep Fried & Minty Fresh", otherwise known as the episode with a big chicken statue falling through a window. The focus, however, is in the secondary case, that of a real estate agent named Melinda, who was found dead while cuffed to her bed, and her husband, Scott, who was suspected of killing her. (Turns out she committed suicide after ingesting too much toothpaste.)
The Tamkins argue that those characters were named after her, alleging that an original script for the episode saw them have the last name Tamkin; it was later replaced by Tucker, which they think is proof that Goldfinger took inspiration from them. They also insist that the writer helped in casting actors who look like the real life couple.
A lawyer for the couple insists that the episode has hurt their real estate business; clients could have been deterred from making business with them after seeing press releases for the episode, which were issued months before the episode aired in February.
I can't help but think it's paranoia, although they do have a point. We'll see...
Item two: One character for longevity, please.
Item three: One more character for... a Jennifer Lopez look-a-like?
