Satriani v. Coldplay
The non-defamatory claim is by guitar hero Joe Satriani who has sued British rockers Coldplay on a claim that they plagiarized one of his songs. Decide for yourself:
But plagiarism, where's the fun in that?
Dixie Chick v. some dude
Here, on the other hand, is a straight-up defamation case:
Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines is the target of a defamation lawsuit by the stepfather of one of three 8-year-old boys slain in 1993.
Maines spoke out for three people convicted of the slayings and alleged the stepfather was instead involved in the killings.
...
Maines attended a Dec. 19 rally in Little Rock, where she claimed Jason Baldwin, Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley — known to sympathizers as the "West Memphis Three" — were innocent and that supposed new evidence pointed to Hobbs. Her comments echoed a Nov. 26, 2007, letter that was still on the Dixie Chicks' Web site on Thursday, in which she claimed that new DNA testing of hair from the crime scene linked Hobbs to the killings and that his behavior after the slayings indicated his guilt.
Accusing someone of being involved in the murder of children is pretty straight-up defamatory, so this case will rest on whether that is in fact what Maines said (or whether she was merely expressing her opinion that the subject of her claims had "acted guilty"). A more interesting aspect is the possibility that Maines could raise truth as a defense, and could therefore take upon herself the burden of proving (by preponderance of the evidence) that the plaintiff is indeed responsible for the acts to which her comments were addressed.
Guns & Roses v. Dr. Pepper
My favorite case of the bunch, the facts are preposterous. Hard rockers Guns n' Roses (which, for any true fan of the early stuff, has not been Guns n' Roses since Slash left, but merely Axl Rose with a backing band) had been promising a new album for well over a decade. Soft drink company Dr. Pepper, apparently doubtful of that outcome, promised a free can of their soda to everyone in America if the album were to actually come out in 2008. And behold, on November 23, 2008, Guns n' Roses indeed came out with Chinese Democracy. And Dr Pepper reportedly botched the job of making good on its promise, claiming to fulfill it by making coupons available on its website for a single day, and then not having the capacity to even keep the website up.
Okay, you may have figured out that this is not a defamation case either, but at least one plank of the claims put forth by Guns n' Roses in a threatened lawsuit, for Guns n' Roses lawyer says:
"When you go on the blogs and you read the responses from the fans, they associated Axl with this promotion ... and blame him for the fact that they didn't get their free soda."
In other words, the band believes that Dr Pepper created a false impression of an association between the entities, such that the failure of the promise to be properly carried out would be falsely viewed by the public as a failure on the part of the rockers, and not the soda stockers.
In my opinion, a lawsuit by Guns n' Roses will have slim legs. Dr Pepper may have reneged on its promise to some degree, but this is a PR problem, not a legal one (the promise was made without any consideration and therefore unenforceable). The use of the name of Guns n' Roses might be excused as a fair public comment (it was, after all, really an expression of a lack of faith in the band's ability to come through). But perhaps Dr Pepper could defend themselves by pointing out that the album was not put out by the "real" Guns n' Roses at all, but by Axl Rose with a backing band.
