A few months ago, I wrote about a friend of mine who was complaining about a movie she was renting.
The movie, a comedy called “Lights Out,” had been produced by the folks behind the “Dirty Jobs” documentary, which features a bunch of former military personnel complaining about the military’s lack of work-life balance.
“They’re just trying to sell the movie, like, ‘This is the movie that they are making,’ ” my friend told me.
I asked her what was wrong with that, because it sounded like something I might be able to find some sort of explanation for.
“I feel like I’m being used, like I am being exploited,” she said.
And so, as the film premiered in theaters, my friend wrote a letter to the movie’s distributor, telling them she would sue them if they did not stop using her name and likeness.
“It’s my life.
It’s mine to keep,” she wrote.
She did not know this because she had never been approached for any sort of compensation, even though she was paid a salary for her work on the film.
She had not even asked the distributor to stop using the film’s name and image.
The company did not immediately respond to my request for comment.
After this letter went viral, she received a letter from a representative for the company saying that she had done everything they could to protect her name.
But the representative said that her claim would be denied because of the way she was identified on the movie.
She was not a journalist or even an activist; she was a woman who was working for a major film company.
That would be unfair.
I called her, and the person she spoke to said that while she could file a complaint, that she did not have a case.
She said that it was a matter of a cop who did not think that her name would be relevant enough to merit legal action.
In fact, she was suing the company.
In a letter, the company said that they would respond to the lawsuit as soon as possible.
That letter is a bit confusing.
On one hand, they said that she would receive a response within a few days.
On the other hand, she had already filed the complaint with the California Film Commission.
In other words, the letter she received was a way for the film to keep the use of her name in the movie going.
And the film was not doing anything to stop it.
They were not trying to use her.
They just wanted to protect their brand name.
So what happened?
The film’s distributor had already contacted the commission to ask it to look into the lawsuit.
The film had been shown in theaters before and was already receiving buzz.
So the commission looked into the complaint, and found that the complaint had been submitted to the wrong agency.
And that, in fact, it was the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, not the film, that had filed the suit.
So they told the film company that it could not proceed with the complaint because they had not found any wrongdoing.
But they didn’t tell the distributor that the case had already been investigated.
They had not contacted the film studio and told them about the complaint.
And, to be fair, the movie had not done anything wrong.
The distributor had been told by a representative from the company that the movie was “fair use” and had not violated any fair use guidelines.
The complaint had even been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.
But even then, the film had not been shown before a court, and there was no indication that the film violated any guidelines, or even any fair-use laws.
But still, the complaint was being sent to the California Fair Use Commission.
The agency did not respond to requests for comment from MTV News.
A couple weeks ago, the director of the film told me that she was still angry at the film distributor for having the audacity to sue her.
She wrote that it did not matter if the complaint contained any errors or misrepresentations; it was still an unfair use and they were using her as a punching bag.
The director also noted that the distributors were not aware of her complaint and were just trying “to scare me and to bully me into doing something.”
But the director did not go so far as to suggest that the entire complaint should be dismissed.
“As a film maker, you don’t need a bunch people telling you what you can and can’t do with your films,” she told me, “and then sending you a letter that says that if you don to comply with it, you’re going to be sued for defamation and you’re just going to lose.”
I asked if she had received any money from the film since the complaint filed.
She replied, “I haven’t.
No, no, no.
I don’t think I have.”
She said she would not be seeking damages from the distributors, but rather asking the commission for