B (2:53)

So in that clip, he's obviously talking about the iconic opening of the Lion King movie. Shaun, you sent me the clip of that comedian big brain lawyer Sean over

A (3:05)

here went, I never knew I ate the cheese 100%. I'm not even pretending I saw it. I said exactly what they said in the lawsuit, which is funny. I'm like, childhood ruined. How did I not know this? And I think Anushka, that's one of their cruxes in the lawsuit is that he didn't offer it as a parody, he offered it as a fact. And that's one of the things that they offer in the lawsuit is the fact that a lot of people on watch it. It's not like he was on stage at his comedy show. He was offering as a fact. So a lot of people took this as a factual allegation.

B (3:40)

And, and, and yeah, a man of learning such as yourself, Dr. Sean Kent, went, hey, that must be the official translation.

A (3:47)

Must be, must be true.

B (3:49)

And then we have the composer, whose name is Libo Hang Meraki, AKA Lebo M. He's a Grammy winning South African composer who wrote and performed the famous opener in the Circle of Life. I mean, talk about having that on your resume. That's pretty impressive stuff. He said exactly what you just said, Sean. This is making a mockery of what I composed, the piece of art that I created. And people are believing that I essentially wrote a song that said, oh, my God, there's a lion. Oh my God. So as always with lawsuits, you can't just write them and send it off into the ether. They have to be officially served. And the comedian Learn more was served whilst on stage at one of his gigs. And we've got a clip of that.

A (4:31)

What is this? What does this say?

B (4:33)

Service.

A (4:34)

Oh, I just got served. For those who are wondering what this is for, I did a joke about the Lion King.

B (4:42)

So like you were saying, Sean, this is what it says in the lawsuit. He says that that is not definitively not what the lyrics mean, that they translate into quote, all hail the King. We all bound in the presence of the King. So childhood not ruined. He said Genasi mocked the chant's cultural significance with exaggerated imitations. Now, Sean, using your expert knowledge, what amount would you attach to this lawsuit? He's holding up a big fat zero.

A (5:10)

I would attach nothing to it. And I'm not saying I'm right, wrong or otherwise, but, you know, and you have to be careful If I'm not mistaken, he's suing him for a bevy of things. He's suing him for defamation, he's suing him for misrepresentation, he's suing him for trade actions and things of that nature. And of course, once we get to the stuff that he did realistically did happen, it is what damages did it actually cause the composer of these things because he's bringing it in his personal capacity. So me, and again, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong or so forth, but remember, Lion King came out in 1994. It is one of the highest grossing movies of all time. It's made all its money. And so for him to say that he has been damaged, he's going to have to show that what this comedian did damaged his ability to make money off of these things. Now, this could change if somebody came along and then maybe they chose to sue him because the composer ruined their childhood or something. And I don't see anything coming from that. But what is interesting, Anoushka, is when I just, while we're sitting on the phone, I just googled Lion King song translation. And so he might have a point because it says the opening of the Lion King translates literally to here comes a lion father. Oh yes, it's a lion. And that's what Google said. Which is the whole point of the lawsuit. It says it's not. So even when you're googling it, his position is it has changed the directive of what he meant the song to be. I still don't know how that equates to damages to him.

B (6:44)

Okay, well let's take a look at the damages, those cognizable damages, a key element that you need in filing a civil lawsuit. So the lawsuit says that Genasi received a standing ovation for a similar joke he made about the song during a 12th of March performance in Los Angeles. And it's alleging that such viral statements because these clips would doing the rounds. Millions and millions of views on social media are interfering with Meraki's business relationship with Disney and his income from royalties, causing more than $20 million in actual damages. Now he's also added on another $7 million in punitive damages. Sean, can you just remind us what punitive damages are?

A (7:20)

The purpose of punitive damages are to dissuade future conduct, to make sure other people aren't doing the same thing. They are punishment damages. So we have actual damages and actual damages are what actually happened to you, what actually caused your injury. If you were in A car accident and you broke your leg and have to go to the hospital, Those are actual damages of what you have to pay for. Now, if the person who hit you was drunk text messaging and doing things that are crazy against the law, we then equate punitive damages to that conduct because we don't want future people drunk text messaging when they caused the accident. So what he is saying is, I want more money in punitive damages because he has hurt me, but the action that he has done has personally hurt me to such the point that I don't want anyone to ever do this ever, ever, ever, ever, ever again. The fact that they put dollar numbers on there don't mean anything. We've talked about that before. These are just random numbers. Juries decide the number. You don't get to say, give me $30 million. That's up to a jury to decide. You juries don't have to award punitive damages, but that is the purpose of them.

B (8:30)

And you can request now, Lebo m justifies the lawsuit because he argues, like you said, that Genasi presented his translation as quote, authoritative fact, not comedy. So it shouldn't get the First Amendment protections. We've spoken about this before afforded to parody and satire that make fun of other artistic works. So you have a right as a comedian, as an artist, as an authority to essentially take the piss out of other stuff, and that's protected constitutionally. Your Constitution is enshrined. That is protected. Do you think his argument there holds water? Given that you yourself, sir, believed it was a fact?

A (9:06)

Do I think it holds water? No, because he's still a comedian. He may have offered it out, but he was a comedian. He was on a show as a comedian. And if you dig into it, and I looked into it a little bit deeper, One of his strongest arguments is known actor Seth Rogen had made the same joke about this sometime earlier in the past, and nobody ever made a complaint about it. You're just coming at me now because people are finding it funnier. You should not have a right to file this claim. It's gonna be their central in defense.

B (9:36)

I think people in the studio are going, seth Rogen's and the Lion King. That is the live action Lion King for all you original 1994ers. We're not talking about, in my opinion, the better one, the live action that not everybody saw. Beyonce was in it. Shout out to Beyonce. Seth Rogen was in it. I think he played Pumbaa.

A (9:52)

There you go.

B (9:53)

Now, we asked Genasi for a comment. The Comedian. We haven't received anything directly back, but he did say he released a clip on Instagram where he spoke a little bit more about this.

A (10:03)

Actually, I'm a big fan of yours. I actually love the song, you know, and. And therefore, this was just a joke. And comedy has always had a way of starting a conversation. Like, I told him this. I was like, this is now, like, your chance to actually educate people, because now people are listening, you know?

B (10:24)

But he says that the reaction to his joke ignored the rest of his work, delving into a more nuanced critique of US Renderings of African identity, so that he makes a deeper commentary on how the US Deals with culture in the continent of Africa, deals with artistic representations of African identity, although each country has a massively different identity in Africa. But he says that he makes those commentaries, and therefore, you should look at this collectively. You should look at his body of work and not just single out this one joke. But isn't the argument there, why should I have to do that? You have caused me damages. Why do I have to look at the rest of your work to have a balanced view of what you say overall about African identity?

A (11:06)

Yes and no. Yes, you're exactly right. You should not dig deeper inside of this. You've caused me harm. It is what it is. But you know my phrase. John Q. Public knows my work and knows this is the. The type of things that I actually do. Chief, in this case is, I promise you, the lawyers for the comedian are going to say the following. And we have seen it before, sir. Not only did we not damage your brand as a result of not only you bringing the lawsuit and my comedy, I have put more action on it, and you'll see more downloads, more people looking at it. And I've actually made you money. Because more people have gone back and looked at this as a result of the stuff that I've said. So not only have I not damaged you, I've made you money. I've seen this happen a bunch of times. Because more people now are going back and looking again.

B (11:52)

That's Sean putting his hand in the air. Sean, this is a podcast.

A (11:56)

I don't know how this stuff works.

B (11:58)

He doesn't know what our podcast is. Oh, my God. I was on the phone to Sean and I said, we are a podcast. And he went, no, we're on the radio. And I said, no, this is a podcast. He was like, what the heck is a podcast?

A (12:09)

What is a podcast? What is that?

B (12:11)

And this man has over 300,000 followers on TikTok. And he don't know how to turn his phone on.

A (12:17)

Was Seth Rogen in it? Was he, Pumbaa? What is.

B (12:19)

Come on, Granddad. You got this. But it just goes to show, you never know what's inside these lawsuits. So many. You guys are litigious fellows over there over the pond.

A (12:30)

Oh, well, I might get sued for putting my hand up right now. You will get sued for anything in the United States if they can think of something. And so that's why I love that you just said that. Which is why, and we talked about it time after time after time, why that summary judgment motions are so important because you can sue somebody for anything, and at some point, a judge is going to say, yeah, Nabra. And if you get past that summary judgment, that means it's a good lawsuit. So summary judgment will be filed in this case. And if they get past it, and you never know, they might just settle because the other side is like, look, we could lose this based upon exactly on what Sean said. When you have a jury of 12 people, music smells. Louise and I have talked about smell.

B (13:09)

Louise is the series producer. Louise is a perfume fanatic, as is Sean. They are bonding week on week. I'm going to get replaced.

A (13:18)

Absolutely.

B (13:19)

Sean's coming in July. He doesn't even want to see me. He just wants to see Louise.

A (13:22)

No, I want to hang out with Louise. But you understand what they're saying. Are there certain smells, there are certain tastes, there's certain something that harken us back to childhood. And so if you have someone on the jury who will say, this comedian hurt my childhood memories, even if for a short period of time, and maybe somebody was going through something, somebody remembers going to the movie with a father, a mother. And you have taken that away from me and taken that memory away. And they're on that jury, and they could award big numbers. You just don't know. And that's why that summary judgment we talk about is so dang important.

B (14:00)

Now, Sean, this next one is right up your street. I should have told you to bring your dogs. I would have them little fur balls, those walking powder puffs that you own. I mean, this. We're talking dogs and we're talking fashion in this next lawsuit.

A (14:15)

Let's go.

B (14:17)

Rile me up.

A (14:20)

I'll put the system on trial. I believe in this case, I'm ready.

B (14:25)

This is about a publication called Doge. In 2019, a woman called Olga Putnaya decided one day we are just not documenting canine fashionistas enough. So she did the only respectable thing an adult could do. And she created a platform that immortalizes designer doggies. I mean, it's needed. This is true public service work. All that is well and good, but it's the name that's caused some problems, because she called it Doge. Doge magazine is offered free online and sold at a single newsstand in Beverly Hills, California. It has a circulation of under 100. But it has been accused of trademark infringement by Vogue, obviously from publisher Conde nast. So in August 2024, Vogue's website published a digital issue featuring celebrity dogs, including Pilaf, a petite chihuahua who belongs to the actress Demi Moore. Okay. It was accompanied by a cover style image with the tit Doge. Conde Nast has filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that Doge has infringed on its trademark for Vogue, the human centric fashion magazine. I love that. The human centric fashion. Human centric, published since 1892. I didn't know that. The complaint demanded that Ms. Portnaya pay Condenas unspecified damages and deliver all copies of Doge to the company for, quote, destruction. Ominous. Conde Nast has told us Ms. Portnoyer's publication claims to be in the style of Vogue, whilst also using Vogue's images with without permission. We made many attempts to amicably resolve the issues with her directly. However, she declined to change course. We were left with no other choice but to file a claim, which for us is always an action of last resort. Protecting the work of our writers, photographers and creative team, as well as our intellectual property is a responsibility we take seriously. What does Ms. Portnoyer have to say? We requested a comment. We haven't had a response. She's being represented by David Mackman, who wrote an email where he said he was disappointed in Conde Nast, saying, quote, my client's magazine is a parody that features humorous pictures of dogs, while Vogue is a fashion magazine that features serious photographs of human models, adding, I don't think anyone would have difficulty recognizing the difference. Sean, do you recognize the difference between

A (16:33)

a dog and a human? Sometimes.

B (16:35)

Sometimes.

A (16:36)

Sometimes.

B (16:37)

You know, blurred lines.

A (16:38)

You know how I feel about dogs.

B (16:41)

Now, look, the dog trademark was filed in 2022 and obtained a United States Patent and trademark approval. So that was filed by Mrs. Portnoya. They got the approval in 2025, which is being opposed by Conde Nast. If they've got the approval, how can they sue? I don't get it.

A (16:56)

Absolutely. And I don't. And it's hard to talk about that because I don't know the Background, they went in. I don't know if they put everybody on notice the way they're required to under the law. You can apply. But then somebody has the ability to say, even though you applied for a patent, there's other ones out there that you didn't touch. And remember, theirs is not specifically about the patent. It's more of trademark infringement. The Lanham Act, 1946, specifically goes into this in California about trademark infringement. And the entire purpose of the Lanham act is to make sure we are not fraudulently working with consumers. We're not trying to fool the consumer. And so even though you've had a patent or a trademark, they can say you have violated because you are fooling the consumers. And Conde Nast is saying, by you creating this, what you are doing is confusing consumers. Because Vogue has a dog issue, and you have created this. And a John Q. Consumer could go to pick up the magazine and be like, oh, this must be this, and grab it incorrectly. If you ever saw here's the Old man coming to America, there was a scene where they're like, McDowell's is suing McDonald's because they have the golden arches and we have the golden arch. It was the same thing. Because you're trying to trademark on. Make sure you understand this, the value and money that somebody has done. And so what Vogue is really saying is, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on our brand and on our marketing, and you are capitalizing on it, and that's not fair. And so somebody out there might say, well, why just leave the little guy alone? Well, if we don't stop the little guy, everybody will start doing it. What if Gucci starts doing it? Then is that a bigger problem? What if Prada starts doing it? Is that a bigger problem? What if Life magazine, people. So we have to stop them right now. So they don't think they can get away with this. That's their position.

B (18:46)

But does publication size not matter? I mean, circulation under a hundred sold in one stand in Beverly Hills. It's not exactly like this is doing the rounds around the world.

A (18:56)

And we've seen that. I've had people come to us with the same issues. And Anushka, their position is, like I just said, it doesn't matter. Because if you don't stop, because what'll end up happening is a big company, a big magazine company will say, you have allowed a smaller person to get away with it, so we should be allowed to do the same thing. I actually think this lawsuit is much more, believe it or not, Interesting than the Lion King lawsuit in South Carolina, 2019. Father by the name of George Sink, who is a law firm. George Sink. His son and him got into a fight. His son's name is George Ted Sink. His father had been in practicing for 30, 40, 50 years, had built a brand up that was amazing. His dad and him got into a fight, so his son offer opened up. George Sank Law Firm. Now, mind you, the son's name is George Sank. The court said, no, you cannot open a law firm under your own name. And this is a federal lawsuit. So there's federal precedent. The federal court said you cannot open a law firm under your own name even though it's your damn name, because you're taking derivative use and using all the marketing and work that your father has done building his brand. So this would be unfair. So what's funny is the son's middle name is Ted, and he has now built a bunch of billboards all over the state using his dad's color scheme and so forth. And his logo is called Ted instead, which I think is kind of funny, instead of calling his daddy. So I'm sure Thanksgivings are very interesting, but there is precedent in the federal court of a big person shutting down a small person for taking their name and likeness.

B (20:31)

You are fire today.

A (20:34)

Whoa. I went to the rabbit hole. Sorry about that. But, yes, you can look it up. It's everywhere. George Sink Law Firm.

B (20:39)

What do you delete in your brain to hold all the information you do? What's gone, what's missing, Anything of importance?

A (20:46)

Like, currently, I'm not wearing shoes, so I'm trying to figure out where those are.

B (20:52)

Now, look, this is an interesting lawsuit,

A (20:54)

because I really think it is. I really do.

B (20:57)

Your First Amendment is supposed to protect parody, right?

A (21:00)

We are supposed to protect parody. But remember, this is not parody in the true context, like we were talking about with our original one, because the other one is supposed to be comedic and so forth. These people are making money off of. Let's keep it simple during the deposition. And this is where I think doge has made their mistake. They have acknowledged that they are parroting the Vogue representation. And so we would ask them, why did you choose that? And their answer would be, because Vogue's very successful. So they're trying to make money off of the back of the work that Vogue, Conde Nast, has done for generations. And so what they're saying is, we don't have to pay for marketing. We do not have to pay for this stuff. We'll just use it. And as Anybody who's ever been in the public sphere, anybody who's ever created any social media whatsoever, and then somebody has stolen it and created a parrot account. And how annoyed you get. It's the same thing that Conde Nast is like, we spent the money. Somebody else is using our brand to make a fortune. It may not be a fortune, okay? Like they said, there's not a lot of subscribers to this thing, but in their position, we need to shut it down. And what's to stop them from hurting the brand? Let's say dog. I mean, everybody thinks it's lovable now, but let's say it starts doing something very creepy. Let's say it does an article supporting somebody they don't like that could be tied into Vogue. So they're like, we want to stop this now. We want to control our own image, not you.

B (22:26)

I thought you'd be more offended that neither of your two little fluff balls.

A (22:30)

I don't understand how Sparty and Clark are not in this magazine. I mean, I'll talk to you about that.

B (22:34)

I've never seen them wearing anything. They're just running around naked all the time.

A (22:38)

Oh, they have a brand. Do not fool yourself. They've got clothing. Okay.

B (22:43)

Oh, God. Oh, Shawn, what's the weirdest thing you've had to defend or prosecute in court that you've been like, this is an insane lawsuit.

A (22:53)

I remember when I was a young lawyer. Shut up, Anoushka. When I was a young Lawyer, I was 52. I knew what was coming. I did a divorce case in which the couple would not settle because they were battling over fancy Tupperware. And at that point in time, I realized I do not want to do family court work anymore, because I was like, what in the f is fancy Tupperware? And it like. And I saw it, and it had, like, the orange pasta stain around that is notorious on there. But this couple hated each other so much that they spent thousands of dollars fighting over Tupperware. And I was just like, I'll just buy you Tupperware. And they're like, no, I want it. She ain't gonna have it. On my good. No, I hate her. And we fought about that for months over Tupperware. That one will stick in my head. And that's the case. I stopped doing family court and made me do more criminal defense.

B (23:44)

And you came home and you went, when I get married, I'm gonna have an airtight prenup every single year.

A (23:50)

You got it.

B (23:51)

Books.

A (23:52)

Dish. Sonia, if you're watching this. You ain't getting the Tupperware. I'm keeping it. It's mine. It's all mine. If you're watching this girl, it's all mine.

B (23:58)

And she said, shawn, I'm getting the houses. Okay, I'll get the houses.

A (24:02)

You keep the Tupperware. I'll show you.

B (24:05)

Oh, thank you so much for coming along today and doing that. It's nice. Look at us. We're happy. We're smiling.

A (24:11)

Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate you.

B (24:13)

That was our resident trial attorney, Shawn Kent from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame under fire from BBC sounds with me, Anushka, Ms. Hander Doughty. If you have any questions for us, send them to me on social media. It's Anoushkamd. And subscribe, turn on those push notifications so you don't miss a thing. If you've got a scrolling problem, then this is the podcast for you.

A (24:38)

It's called Top Comment.

B (24:39)

With me, Matt Shea, and me, Mariana Spring. We both investigate social media for a

A (24:43)

living, whether it's disinformation, conspiracy theories, Internet culture memes.

B (24:48)

We're going to be getting behind the stuff that is popping up on your

A (24:51)

feed on this podcast that's Top Comment on BBC Sounds. New surprises every day. Cash Avalanche Casino Slot combines energetic gameplay with daily events and exciting challenges. Whether you play casually or enjoy friendly competition, there's always something happening. Download Cash Avalanche Casino Slot on the App Store and claim your bonus.

B (25:14)

Hate cleaning, Hate scrubbing, Hate dishwashing. Bro, we got you millions of videos about smart cleaning hacks will make your chores feel like a breeze. Download TikTok and check it out.