control room by istockphoto.com, cAmerA by Alexey84 / dreAmstime.com

TV contestants surrender control

It is relatively rare for Canadian courts to directly address entertainment-law related matter and relevant appellate decisions come along perhaps once or twice a decade.

Entertainment lawyers can rejoice that the quota for this decade has been hit early on with the decisions in Turmel v. CBC (Dragons’ Den). The decisions are important because they confirm the enforceability of so-called “depiction releases” by which participants on television shows agree to waive any right to sue the producers. Such releases are usually drafted to preclude claims of any sort, ranging from defamation to copyright infringement, and so entertainment lawyers have expected them to serve as a crucial weapon in the event of any dispute.

BOB
TARANTINO

The saga of Turmel v. CBC (Dragons’ Den) involves two different actions commenced by a plaintiff who had appeared on the CBC show Dragons’ Den, on which entrepreneurs pitch their ideas or products in an attempt to secure money from a panel of experienced investors.

John Turmel was unhappy with the manner in which he was depicted on the show and sued the CBC twice—first when the episode in which he appeared initially aired and then when it was rerun.

Because Turmel was self-
represented, the courts allowed
him some latitude in construing
his pleadings, which contained a
variety of intermingled claims,
including defamation and breach
of contract.

The courts have thus confirmed that a properly drafted depiction release can constitute a “complete bar” to a claim by a disgruntled show participant.

The CBC’s depiction release included language that gave all rights in the footage of Turmel to the CBC, allowing the broadcaster to edit and use it in any manner it saw fit. Critically, any individual signing the release expressly waived any right to bring any action of any sort. The release also included an acknowledgement that show participants might be portrayed in a manner that was “ disparaging, defamatory, embarrass-ing or of an otherwise unfavourable nature” and could be exposed to “public ridicule, humiliation or condemnation.”