The Wolf of Wall Street: Yet Another Theft?

Andrew Greene, an ex-director and head of corporate finance at Stratton Oakmont, Inc., the subject of the 2013 hit Martin Scorsese film The Wolf of Wall Street, brought suit against Paramount Pictures and others last year alleging defamation and violations of his right to privacy under the laws of New York. Greene claims that the character Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff is an identifiable portrayal of him, and that people who have watched the movie believe that the Koskoff character is a depiction of Greene, causing damage to Greene’s reputation. One of the main connections between Greene and Koskoff is that Koskoff is ridiculed for his toupee, earning him the nickname “Rugrat.” Greene’s nickname was “Wigwam” for similar reasons.
Greene seeks over $50 million in damages, as well as an injunction prohibiting further distribution of the movie and an order to turn over to Greene all copies of the movie and all advertisements containing the Koskoff character. It is doubtful that Greene will get all that he demands since the Eastern District of New York dismissed much of Greene’s complaint, but he may be able to recover something on his defamation claim.
New York does not recognize a common-law right of privacy, or what many other states call a “right of publicity,” but allows for a limited statutory right of privacy that prohibits “nonconsensual commercial appropriations of the name, portrait or picture of a living person.” Since Greene’s actual name and image were not used in The Wolf of Wall Street, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Greene’s right of privacy claim.
Greene’s claim for defamation, on the other hand, survived the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendants argued that Greene cannot plausibly allege that the Koskoff Character is “of and concerning” him – an essential element of a libel claim – because Koskoff is a fictional composite of characters (from Jordan Belfort’s memoir) who is only “superficially” similar to Greene. “The test is whether a reasonable person, viewing the alleged defamatory work, would understand that the character portrayed in the work was, in actual fact, the plaintiff acting as described.” The court determined that the facts alleged by Greene were enough to survive the motion to dismiss.
This case is just another in a long line of cases where people thought that a character in a television show or movie was made to steal their likeness. While in many cases this may have been true, when should one of these people actually be entitled to compensation? All art is derivative in one way or another, and a story is almost always based off of the real-life experiences of the author. When a man demands compensation because an old friend is selling a story with a character that is probably based off him, he ignores the fact that he did nothing outside of existing as himself to produce or popularize the story as it appeared in print and on the big screen. Whatever is right or wrong, just or unjust, these abstract image misappropriation cases rarely succeed. Perhaps, in a Belfort-esque way, Greene’s lawyer collected a huge retainer after convincing Greene to chase a dead-end case.
 
By Brian Unger