- Lawyers for the Baskins said the film
footage gives a false impression they agreed to participate. - The
lawsuit argues that the Baskins never signed appearance releases for subsequent projects.
A lawyer representing Carole and Howard Baskin filed a lawsuit against
"The Baskins are aware that they cannot control the stories that may be spun by defendants no matter how misleading, distorted, unethical, and libelous. But, the Baskins should not be forced to be involuntary participants in this endeavor
through the unauthorized use of the film footage," the lawsuit says. "This film footage alone gives the
false impression that the Baskins endorse or, at least agreed to participate in '
The lawsuit argues that the appearance releases signed by the Baskins for "Tiger King" only mentioned a single "documentary motion picture" and no subsequent projects.
Lawyers retained by the Baskins asked
"From the absence of such terms, it is clear to me as a motion picture industry professional, that the scope
of the appearance releases is limited to a single 'documentary motion picture' and not sequels, or an episodic televisions series or other productions or works derived from the original 'documentary motion picture' or remakes," Madoff said, according to the lawsuit.
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Royal Goode Productions reapproached Joe Exotic's niece, Chealsi Putnam, about participating in "Tiger King 2," and told her that she would need to sign new appearance releases for the project. The Baskins' representation argued that this proves Royal Goode Productions knew the original releases were only good for the original project and do not extend to use of film footage in "Tiger King 2."
The Baskins and Putnam signed the same appearance releases for the original documentary, according to the lawsuit.