The photographic part is libel and statement is slander in an imputed film

Barathkumar K M | Sastra Deemed to be University Thanjavur | 2nd July 2020

Youssoupoff Vs Metro- Goldwyn- Mayer Pictures

Facts:

In this case, the plaintiff was a princess. The defendant, Metro- Goldwyn- Mayer Pictures produced a film ‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’. In that film, it was shown that the plaintiff had a sexual relationship with Prince Chegodieff and also it was shown that she was seduced and raped by Rasputin, a man of the worst possible character. After that film, most of the people thought that the princess had an illicit relationship with someone and also she was raped by others. But in real life, she neither had an illicit relationship nor was raped by anyone. The princess Irina Youssoupoff was married to Prince Youssoupoff. She sued a case against the production company for defamation.

Issue:

• Whether the false statement and the photographic part shown in the film come under defamation?

Plaintiff’s argument:

The plaintiff stated that in that film there were imputations that Princess Irina Youssoupoff had an illicit relationship with Prince Chegodieff and she was raped by Rasputin. So, most of the people thought that Princess Youssoupoff had an illicit relationship and she was raped by someone.  

Defendant’s argument:

The defendant stated that the statement made in that film is slander and there is no libel in that film. Slander is not as a rule actionable unless they proved special damage. In this case, there is no special damage. Hence there is no defamation.

Observation:

It was observed that in the film ‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’ the life story of Princess Youssoupoff was imputed. It was proved that there was special damage. The defendant held that there is no libel in this case. But the photographic part of this film was permanent and it was seen by eyes. Hence, it comes under the libel and the statement made in the film was heard by ears and thus it was slander. Thus, the defendant needs to pay compensation to the plaintiff.

Judgment:                   

The court held that, in this case, the defamatory statement was published and it reached the third persons. Hence it fulfills the essential conditions for defamation. The statement made in that film is slander and the photographic part in that film is libel. Hence the defendant is held liable for defamation. Thus the defendant should pay the compensation of 25,000 Pounds to the plaintiff.