Moore being sued of Farenheit 9/11?

[NewJeffCT]

I did a quick search on this but couldn't find anything... but, a Freeper type in the local weekly newspaper claims Michael Moore is being sued over F 9/11 for changing a newspaper headline? It sounds bogus, but I just wanted to verify with DU before I rip the guy a new one and accuse him of drinking the Fox Jazeera kool-aid.

[RebelOne]

1. I did see something about that

I think the date was changed on the article.

[Catfight]

2. All of FH911 is FACT, nothing has been disputed. eom

[Shoeempress]

3. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything at anytime. Filing suit

means Zero, winning means something. So even if it's true, so what. I'd point out the hypocrisy of rooting for "evil trial lawyers" when they are suing someone you hate but trying to stop them when they run for VP.

[ET Awful]

4. No date was changed.

He simply enlarged the type over an article in the paper so it would be more easily readable on screen.

The paper DID NOT SUE HIM, they wrote him a letter asking for damages of ONE DOLLAR. Yes, one dollar.

The guy is lying. No headline was changed, no information was changed. He simply enlarged the type to make it more legible.

You should contact your local paper and refer them to http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/080804/new_20040808027.shtml which is the paper in question, and their article on the matter.

Once again. . . THEY DID NOT SUE HIM.

[splat]

5. quibble

No big deal -- a graphics emphasis:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/08/13/story161563.html

Director Michael Moore is refusing to apologise to bosses at an Illinois newspaper, who have accused him of altering a headline in his controversial film Fahrenheit 9/11.

Bosses at Bloomington publication The Pantagraph say the headline, flashed briefly in the film, came from a letter to the editor about the 2000 presidential election recount but was doctored to look like a news story. Even the date was changed.

The newspaper sent a letter to Moore and his production company last month that it says was lighthearted but symbolic, demanding an apology and $1 (82 cent) in compensatory damages.

But an attorney for Moore's Westside Productions replied this week, stating that Moore violated no copyright laws and did nothing misleading.

Pantagraph president and publisher Henry Bird, who directed his lawyers to send a follow-up letter asking Moore to explain why material from the paper was altered without permission, booms, "Baloney!"

Westside Productions lawyer Devereux Chatillon acknowledges that Moore was two weeks off on the date of the headline, which read: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election."

But Chatillon wrote in a letter to the paper that the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph)".

[muchacho]

6. break it

Leave it to neocons to abuse a good thing (like independent council and 527s) and then call for their elimination. They also abuse the court system and then brey about tort reform and clogged courts.

How do they sleep? I guess it's easy in silk sheets.

[ikojo]

7. What I recall is that this story came out right after F 9/11

premiered. It has something to do with the Bloomington IL paper, the Pantagraph and how Moore used a headline from the paper in the movie.

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/081204/new_20040812033.shtml

Moore lawyer responds to newspaper complaint

By Bill Flick
[e-mail]

BLOOMINGTON -- The Pantagraph has received its first response from filmmaker Michael Moore about his "makeover" of a Pantagraph page in the hit movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Moore apparently is not going to say he's sorry or pay the newspaper's light-hearted, if not symbolic, request for $1 in compensatory damages.

snip

Further, the letter claims Moore did nothing "misleading" when the headline ("Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election") that originally appeared above a Dec. 5, 2001, letter to the editor was altered in both the font and size of the type for the movie and made to look like a news story from a Dec. 19, 2001, edition of The Pantagraph.