| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Is "JT Leroy" a Fraud? |
Topic: Is "JT Leroy" a Fraud?
| Author | Message |
| GalleyCat | Posted – 6/26/2007 1:18:09 AM | show profile GalleyCat's Ron Hogan has objections over the guilty verdict against Laura Albert, the author who presented herself as "JT Leroy" for several years and was sued by a film company that bought the rights to one of JT's novels. Do you think that her literary and extra-literary posturing represented actual fraud? |
| tbird | Posted – 6/26/2007 11:15:21 AM | show profile Caveat emptor I'm with Larry Doyle. Books are increasingly little more than ads for a product, which is the author's marketable image, and this seems a pretty clear case of a lack of truth in advertising. Purveyors of snake oil used to do this all the time. I'm sure that poor Miss Albert will come up with a new angle soon. |
| JimmyG | Posted – 6/26/2007 11:39:37 AM | show profile I'm surprised publishers aren't buying manuscripts and slapping fictional author photos on the published books already to youth-up their image. Perhaps it's the obscession with age and image that are at fault here, and Albert just got caught exploiting the marketplace. Ironically the same thing has been happening in the world of classical music where age and beauty on an album-cover shot sell as much as talent and artistry. |
| foodlit | Posted – 6/26/2007 1:24:35 PM | show profile Does that make George Eliot a fraud too? Shouldn't it be the writing that matters? Not the writers' persona? |
| ISR | Posted – 6/26/2007 1:25:13 PM | show profile Yes, she seems like a fraud, albeit a crazy one. At least the way they're swinging it. |
| levi.asher | Posted – 6/26/2007 8:06:43 PM | show profile response to Larry Doyle's response I don't find Larry Doyle's attempt to provide a rational explanation for this punitive judgment at all convincing. Agreed that intangibles such as "celebrity" and "persona" play a big role in today's media market, but when a film producer buys a story from a novelist, isn't it the film producer who takes on the financial risk? The idea that a film production company and its investors can hold a novelist liable for project failure should be offensive and alarming to every writer in the world. I still say Laura Albert got steamrolled. She deserves a new trial and I hope some of her former friends out there will come out of the woodwork and help her pay for it. |
| larrydoyle | Posted – 6/26/2007 10:54:56 PM | show profile A re-response The JT Leroy case was pretty open and shut. The movie company bought the novel based on the hype, hype almost entirely based on the identity of the author, a real-life teen male hooker-junkie whose novel was described as a thinly veiled version of the awful truth. The movie company planned on selling the movie to its audience based on this author and his supposed access to this particular world, and also on the fact that this author was "famous." Certainly more people know who JT Leroy is that ever read that book (I haven't). When it was revealed that there was in fact no teen male hooker-addict, the commercial value of the work was severely curtailed, and the damage was caused by misrepresentations made by the seller. As a simple matter of contract law, the seller is responsible for these misrepresentations. But more specifically, all publishing and entertainment contracts contain lots and lots of specific language in which the seller guarantees that the author of the work is indeed the author and not any other individual or individuals, and furthermore, that the company has the right to use the likeness and life of this author to promote the work. JT Leroy's nonexistence voided both these parts of the contract, which are both considered to be material breaches. Artists have every right to have their work treated as art. Until they sell it. Then it's a commodity. |
| levi.asher | Posted – 6/27/2007 12:09:02 AM | show profile okay Larry, I find this explanation somewhat more reasonable. Yes, I agree that once you sell a work you must expect it to be treated as a commodity. But, when you say this the argument loses a lot of credibility: "The movie company bought the novel based on the hype, hype almost entirely based on the identity of the author, a real-life teen male hooker-junkie whose novel was described as a thinly veiled version of the awful truth. The movie company planned on selling the movie to its audience based on this author and his supposed access to this particular world, and also on the fact that this author was "famous."" I've never heard of this way of purchasing a film. I've been around the film business, and this depiction of a film project's business plan does not ring true at all. Here's just one of many reasons, J. T. Leroy was hardly even famous at all except to ultra-hip literary types, who would have made up only a fraction of this film's intended audience. If this film had good actors, a good screenplay and good direction, why couldn't it have been a success? |
| levi.asher | Posted – 6/27/2007 12:10:11 AM | show profile okay Larry, I find this explanation somewhat more reasonable. Yes, I agree that once you sell a work you must expect it to be treated as a commodity. But, when you say this the argument loses a lot of credibility: "The movie company bought the novel based on the hype, hype almost entirely based on the identity of the author, a real-life teen male hooker-junkie whose novel was described as a thinly veiled version of the awful truth. The movie company planned on selling the movie to its audience based on this author and his supposed access to this particular world, and also on the fact that this author was "famous."" I've never heard of this way of purchasing a film. I've been around the film business, and this depiction of a film project's business plan does not ring true at all. Here's just one of many reasons, J. T. Leroy was hardly even famous at all except to ultra-hip literary types, who would have made up only a fraction of this film's intended audience. If this film had good actors, a good screenplay and good direction, why couldn't it have been a success? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 6/27/2007 2:31:47 AM | show profile Yup. Lots of books are bought based on the hype and heat of the moment and never get made into films. The film project was probably dead and the company saw this as a way to get their money back. --The JT Leroy case was pretty open and shut. The movie company bought the novel based on the hype, hype almost entirely based on the identity of the author, a real-life teen male hooker-junkie whose novel was described as a thinly veiled version of the awful truth. The movie company planned on selling the movie to its audience based on this author and his supposed access to this particular world, and also on the fact that this author was "famous." Certainly more people know who JT Leroy is that ever read that book (I haven't). When it was revealed that there was in fact no teen male hooker-addict, the commercial value of the work was severely curtailed, and the damage was caused by misrepresentations made by the seller. As a simple matter of contract law, the seller is responsible for these misrepresentations.-- |
| Vox-o | Posted – 6/27/2007 8:40:02 AM | show profile Quote: "The movie company bought the novel based on the hype, hype almost entirely based on the identity of the author, a real-life teen male hooker-junkie whose novel was described as a thinly veiled version of the awful truth. The movie company planned on selling the movie to its audience based on this author and his supposed access to this particular world, and also on the fact that this author was "famous." Was this in the contract? One's motivation for signing a contract is irrelevant, unless these expectations are explicitly stated they make no difference. If it wasn't in the contract, there was no breach. |
| Vox-o | Posted – 6/27/2007 8:51:37 AM | show profile One other thing, I believe Laura Albert's theatrical testimony about her alter ego was her undoing. They should have kept the trial dry as a bone by focusing on the contract and the contract alone. All that "sad childhood" testimony in order to justify the persona of Leroy was a big mistake, only made her seem like a kook. |
| larrydoyle | Posted – 6/27/2007 9:07:04 AM | show profile Breach As a matter of contract law, breach can occur any time fraud or misrepresentation occurs that changes the nature or value of what is being sold, whether or not this is specifically stated in the contract. Breach can also occur through omission, if the buyer had a reasonable belief about what s/he was buying, the true nature of which was known but not made clear by the seller. Furthermore, as I said in the very next paragraph, that contract had to include such things as a certificate of authorship, and almost certainly included language on using JT Leroy in promoting the film. I am in the film business. I've signed these contracts. They leave very little to the imagination. It doesn't matter what the film company could have done with the book. They could have chosen to proceed, based on their belief in the story. But I guess they didn't like the story so much as the whole package. And so they were within their (legal) rights to ask for their money back. Again, there can be all sorts of arguments about the nature of art, and what an author owes to the audience, and all that. But this was a legal case. And Albert had none. She will be very lucky if she is not required to pay all attorney fees, as she should be. |
| larrydoyle | Posted – 6/27/2007 9:20:44 AM | show profile Droit d'auteur In France, they have something called "the right of the author," which creates certain moral rights for the author of any work, including the right to be "respected." After her trial, Albert seemed to be evoking these rights in her defense, sentiments echoed in some of the posts here. Unfortunately, in the United States, not only is there no driot d'auteur, U.S. law explicitly states that no such rights exist. It's too bad, but there it is. |
| Vox-o | Posted – 6/27/2007 9:58:34 AM | show profile "...and almost certainly included language on using JT Leroy in promoting the film. " To me this is the key, and that was my point made above. I have not seen it reported in the press anywhere that this was explicitly stated in the contract. If it fact was in there, then I agree she signed it fraudulently. If not, I absolutley disagree with the verdict. |
| levi.asher | Posted – 6/27/2007 10:33:18 AM | show profile one more question Larry, I appreciate your responses, and I do know that you know the business from the inside and your comments have helped me understand how this decision could possibly have been made. I have less experience than you with film contracts -- however I do have a lot of experience both professional and personal with the law and the court system, and I would like to ask you to seriously consider one point I've tried to make about this (and vox-o's comments seem to getting at the same thing I'm getting at here). You are speaking of this case as if it had only one possible outcome, but I know that there is a vast difference between how one legal team or another will conduct a case. My real sense of outrage here is based on the summaries of the defense's arguments. It seems clear to me that their best strategy was to disengage the personality of J. T. Leroy from the case as much as possible (why put a flaky person at the center of a jury trial?) and instead put every one of the film production company's claim to damages under intense questioning. Put the burden of proof on the film company to demonstrate that their business plan for the movie was completely dependent on J. T. Leroy's persona, to demonstrate that they could not have possibly continued with the film project after the revelation of the author's identity, to demonstrate that this film had no chance of earning a profit. The defense's main strategy should have been to put the production company's claim to damages in doubt in front of the jury, and leave J. T. Leroy's persona and personality problems out of the scope of the argument as much as possible. Larry, do you see any validity to this point? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 6/27/2007 11:55:41 AM | show profile I am not a lawyer but this would seem a weak strategy to me. This probably would of been a fairly low-budget independent film -- and those are always iffy projects that can have a hard time even getting distribution. It wouldn't be a hard case to make that a project like this is iffy from the start and that the film company decided to not go forward once they knew the author's identity because they'd lose that publicity boost and thought that would hurt their chances of distribution enough to not want to take the risk. --Put the burden of proof on the film company to demonstrate that their business plan for the movie was completely dependent on J. T. Leroy's persona, to demonstrate that they could not have possibly continued with the film project after the revelation of the author's identity, to demonstrate that this film had no chance of earning a profit. The defense's main strategy should have been to put the production company's claim to damages in doubt in front of the jury, and leave J. T. Leroy's persona and personality problems out of the scope of the argument as much as possible. -- |
| larrydoyle | Posted – 6/28/2007 12:36:34 AM | show profile Burden of proof Again, I'm only speaking as to the law, and to contract law, specifically. The film company doesn't have to prove any damages. They only have to demonstrate that they did not get what they paid for: a novel by JT Leroy. And they weren't, in fact, even asking for damages. They weren't asking that Albert be required to pay them the profits they expected to make from the movie, or the profits they might have made from another movie had they not devoted their time and effort to Albert's fraud. They only asked that Albert repay them what they paid her, and direct costs* they incurred pursuing the project based on their belief they had purchased an autobiographical novel. Basically, they were just asking for their money back. This is the simplest of contract cases, where the judge and jury don't have to decide what is fair, or what could have or should have been done, only if the seller fraudulently misrepresented what it was selling to the buyer. I just asked a friend of mine, a contract lawyer, and she told me the plaintiff doesn't even have to prove that what they bought was of lesser value that what they they contracted to buy, only that it was not what they contracted to buy. Her example: Company A agrees to sell Company B 10,000 iPod Nanos. Company B delivers 10,000 Microsoft Zunes, which they claim do the same thing as the Nanos and retail for a higher price. Company A doesn't have to prove that Nanos are cooler, or that it planned on make its stores cooler by selling Nanos, only that it made a deal to buy Nanos and not Zunes. Company B's argument, that they are different in name only, is moot. *The reimbursement for costs they were asking for was miniscule by Hollywood standards. I have a screenplay I wrote, for which I got paid about $300,000, that I have tried to repurchase, but the studio claims they spent $1.5 million on its development, even though no other writers were hired and only one executive there that I know of even read it. |
| levi.asher | Posted – 6/28/2007 9:40:31 PM | show profile the last word? Larry and others -- I enjoyed this extended (and always intelligent) conversation. But, Larry, I have to say that I think you're wrong. The defense has the right to challenge every one of the plaintiff's points. Yes, the plaintiff will argue that they did not get what they bought. The defense has the right to contest this point. They should bring in literary critics to testify why they gave "Sarah" great reviews and ask if they think the book still has value. They should bring in in the film producers who have made a successful film of J. T. Leroy's "The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things" and ask them if the J. T. Leroy authorship scandal hurt showings of their movie (since the movie is currently running on several cable TV indie film channels, the answer is that the scandal had no impact at all). What Laura Albert needed (and didn't get) is an aggressive defense. The defense should have avoided putting Albert on the witness stand, and instead should have conceded the point that the book was written under a pseudonym (big deal!) and contested that the book retains its value and that no meaningful fraud took place. And, mainly, they should make the plaintiff's legal team sweat out every word in that contract. This is the kind of defense Laura Albert needs, and still needs if she's going to appeal. With this kind of defense, she will win. |
| Vox-o | Posted – 6/29/2007 1:18:40 AM | show profile I totally agree with Levi regarding how this case should have been defended. It is such a no-brainer to choose that style of defense over the "I am an abused kooky author who required an alter ego" defense, I can't help but think that she made her attorney go down that road. After all, she is the client and the final decision is hers. For some reason I suspect she is the type who likes the sound of her own voice, and insisted upon this theatrical route. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 6/29/2007 2:12:04 AM | show profile I don't know about this defense. It's basically saying: "Yeah, we didn't sell you what you thought you were buying, but we think what we sold you is great, so you should too." It would be a bad strategy to bring in "The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things." The film got bad reviews and its box office showing was nothing special. I think what people are missing in all this is that movies are a tough racket to make a buck in, so it's generally a losing proposition to contend that any film project is a good investment. I don't think anyone could make a case that investing in a film based on JT's book is a better economic investment than putting that money into a mutal fund tied to the Dow 100. --But, Larry, I have to say that I think you're wrong. The defense has the right to challenge every one of the plaintiff's points. Yes, the plaintiff will argue that they did not get what they bought. The defense has the right to contest this point. They should bring in literary critics to testify why they gave "Sarah" great reviews and ask if they think the book still has value. They should bring in in the film producers who have made a successful film of J. T. Leroy's "The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things" and ask them if the J. T. Leroy authorship scandal hurt showings of their movie (since the movie is currently running on several cable TV indie film channels, the answer is that the scandal had no impact at all). What Laura Albert needed (and didn't get) is an aggressive defense. The defense should have avoided putting Albert on the witness stand, and instead should have conceded the point that the book was written under a pseudonym (big deal!) and contested that the book retains its value and that no meaningful fraud took place. And, mainly, they should make the plaintiff's legal team sweat out every word in that contract. This is the kind of defense Laura Albert needs, and still needs if she's going to appeal. With this kind of defense, she will win.pp |
| levi.asher | Posted – 6/29/2007 10:08:22 AM | show profile the discussion that never ends! Vox, you may be right that Albert might have urged her lawyers to make that wrong choice. If so, that mitigates the outrage somewhat. On the other hand, we don't know if this is true or not. I still suspect that her inability to pay for an enthusiastic and energetic defense strategy is the main factor in this decision. Dribbledrive, you're missing a key fact: the defense doesn't have to prove anything. They simply have to cast doubt on the plaintiff's argument. This was a jury trial, and jury trials can swing on highly subjective points. The plaintiff's case is a chain of suppositions, and if the defense can weaken a single link in this chain, that is sufficient for a jury decision favorable to the defense. See "O. J. Simpson". |
| larrydoyle | Posted – 6/29/2007 10:28:56 AM | show profile The Law I've now checked with several contract attorneys, including my own (a very powerful Hollywood lawyer) and to a person they say Albert never had a case, any case. As I mentioned before, the "just as good" defense is no defense at all. The contract doesn't specify that Albert was selling a good novel, or a novel that could make a great movie, she was selling the rights to a novel by JT Leroy, purported to be a real person (supported through an elaborate rouse). There was no JT Leroy. Case closed. Had the jury sided with Albert, my attorney says, "I would have ask the judge to set aside the verdict, and he would have." He said the arguments offered above wouldn't even have been allowed, since they are legally beside the point. He said the defense's argument -- essentially that Albert WAS Leroy, and therefore no fraud occured -- might have sounded kooky but at least it was in line with an accepted legal argument. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 6/29/2007 12:06:04 PM | show profile Yeah, I know. I was just responding to the basic idea. --Dribbledrive, you're missing a key fact: the defense doesn't have to prove anything. They simply have to cast doubt on the plaintiff's argument. This was a jury trial, and jury trials can swing on highly subjective points. The plaintiff's case is a chain of suppositions, and if the defense can weaken a single link in this chain, that is sufficient for a jury decision favorable to the defense. See "O. J. Simpson".-- |
| levi.asher | Posted – 6/29/2007 12:18:51 PM | show profile letting it rest Thanks again for the response, Larry. I believe your contract lawyers are giving you quick and easy answers, and I'm absolutely sure that the use of a pen name alone does not amount to fraud (which is what you seem to be arguing here). But let's let this rest, at the risk (or is it already too late?) of becoming tiresome. I have definitely enjoyed hashing this out with all of you. |
