08 Nov CAROLE BASKIN FAILS IN INJUNCTION BID TO HALT TIGER KING SEQUEL
Carole Baskin, who featured in hit Netflix documentary Tiger King, has failed in a claim to prevent use of interview footage of her in a forthcoming sequel series.
Baskin and her husband launched proceedings against the streaming platform and Royal Goode Productions LLC to block the use of any interview footage of them beyond the first season of the show.
Baskin features heavily in a recently-released trailer for Tiger King 2 and her claim was brought on the basis that the use of the footage went beyond the scope of her original release for a single documentary feature film.
The application for an injunction was, however, denied by a Florida Judge.
“While the Court understands the Baskins’ frustration, it does not appear that inclusion of Defendants’ footage of the Baskins will cause any immediate harm that cannot be compensated with monetary damages,” she said.
“Importantly, the Court merely finds that the Baskins are not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order, which would be entered before Defendants have had an adequate opportunity to respond,” the Judge added.
This was explained to the Court as being based on the fact that “Tiger King 1 was particularly harsh and unfair in its depiction of the Baskins and Big Cat Rescue” and that “the over-arching implication” was that Baskin was involved in the disappearance of her first husband in 1997.
Her lawyer argued that Netflix portrayed Baskin as the “villain,” while Joseph Maldonado-Passage, also known as Joe Exotic, who is currently in prison for his role in a murder-for-hire plot and violating federal wildlife laws, was shown as the hero.
Despite the refusal of the injunction, the Baskins’ claim will continue; they are seeking a jury trial and at least $100,000 in damages.
The claim is an example of a disgruntled subject of media interest attempting to use intellectual property law to prevent unwanted coverage.
The decision to refuse the injunction broadly reflects the position in English law, that the Court will be slow to prevent publication or broadcast where financial compensation is available as compensation for the infringement.