Nick Viall - Bachelorette 10 Contestant - Plane Vid - Discussion - *Spoilers*

With all due respect to the time-honored Board Sport of Wild Speculation, all this talk of contracts and defamation and people suing people is so far removed from reality I don't even know where to begin. None of these individuals as a matter of protecting their reputations, contracts or anything else would go to court, nor could they (all disputes would be resolved by confidential arbitration far from the public eye). There are legions of reasons why no actionable torts, nor any rational legal strategy, arise from the known or speculated circumstances of that taping.

In addition, the "foiler" idea for the Plane Video is not going to pan out, but that's purely IMO. People hate on RS, and he is an annoying b#)(%*d most of the time, but as suspicious as this is (I get that), the video has a very specific -- known to him -- provenance, I believe.

^thanks jlccaz

Kashathediva wrote:I have heard, the handler travels only one leg of the transport. 
In the past, contracts have been posted on this forum. 
Contracts might change season to season, I suspect, but they do entail quite a bit of ownership and it used to be for 2 yrs --from signing. 
That entailed, cast showing up for certain dog and pony shows and other obligations and rights.

Post-wrap, the cast have leeway whether to show up.  (contract would be unenforceable personal services contract otherwise)  They can have work conflicts and the like, which explains why MTA and WTA tapings have spot absences sometimes.  

No one I know has seen a leaked agreement in years, and it's widely apparent from social media, that many terms have changed materially since a version made it on to the internet during Jillian's or Jason's seasons.  ANd that version (as compared to Trista's which was available at smokinggun.com) had many changes, including pay scale for having options to appear on other Disney or Warner/Horizon properties picked up.

They were likely unenforceable as written in Trista's era, which may even have been tested behind the scenes with threats and the like including from other reality shows that used similarly one-sided contracts of adhesion (Take it or Leave it).  And then they started paying some money ("consideration" is needed) and becoming more explicit about who owns the ring (thanks Shayne), paid appearances in other owned properties, and many other items.

My belief now is that social media is incorporated and regulated by the agreements.  I've written many a corporate social media policy, and one can spot the signs.  The producers (Elan, Peter, Fleiss, Mills, Cassie and some others) are authorized social media participants, who can tweet and post photos with more leeway, in ways that largely promote interest, engagement with the franchise, viewership.  Crew can post personal photos only after that locale airs on TV (huge sleuthing bummer, eh!).  And cast have to lock down accounts or delete during filming, but post-filming, their fan base is used to similarly promote interest in the franchise, engage with fans directly, and generally do things that might boost ratings or profile of the show, etc.  

Some things won't have changed that are standard throughout the industry, such as mandatory arbitration for all disputes.

Kashathediva wrote:What is a lie?

Oh Gosh, not you Kasha!!   
I mean the video and its content (IF it is a foiler)

Kashathediva wrote:I am paraphrasing what I remember, and that is never a good thing, but I do believe in one part of the contract it is plainly stated the show may make the person look very badly. (like an azz, idiot, jerk etc) It plainly states that the show may portray the cast person unfavorably and not in a good light. 
So I would imagine once you sign that--you have opened yourself up for a lot.

Thanks for clarifying! I agree and my earlier point is they cannot make you blatantly lie, especially post-filming!

sophienette wrote:

Kashathediva wrote:What is a lie?

Oh Gosh, not you Kasha!!   
I mean the video and its content (IF it is a foiler)

   I did not think for a NY minute that you were personalizing this to me! LOL I just couldn't figure out what you meant. 
Now I can.

sdmom wrote:

How about Kelly Travis who called Nick bipolar and creepy pedophile? BTW, I asked her to remove the tweet, and I don't think she's responded. Also tons of people being very harsh and negative towards Nick. Can Nick sue them for defamation?  Or the person who secretly taped and then followed him for more photos? Violation of privacy? I just don't know if anyone has any ground to sue anyone. Do we have any legal experts here?

Honestly, I don't get it, while we're arguing who is going to sue who for what reason, this woman is Andi's bestie boo who is saying these things. I guess if it's all a foiler then Andi must be mad at her fiance or venting some frustrations to Kelly if this is Kelly's interpretation of him?

^ Andi did tweet after that episode Stay Classy, right? (That phrase was popularized by Anchorman which Nick quoted in that deleted scene , hahaha can't help    hope you don't mind   
Anyway, I am totally confused and don't know what is to believe anymore!

Alanna wrote:

sdmom wrote:

How about Kelly Travis who called Nick bipolar and creepy pedophile? BTW, I asked her to remove the tweet, and I don't think she's responded. Also tons of people being very harsh and negative towards Nick. Can Nick sue them for defamation?  Or the person who secretly taped and then followed him for more photos? Violation of privacy? I just don't know if anyone has any ground to sue anyone. Do we have any legal experts here?

Honestly, I don't get it, while we're arguing who is going to sue who for what reason, this woman is Andi's bestie boo who is saying these things. I guess if it's all a foiler then Andi must be mad at her fiance or venting some frustrations to Kelly if this is Kelly's interpretation of him?

Anything is possible, just like when we see on the news some silly person plans to sue McDonald's because they spilled hot coffee on themselves from there. I was more so just stating, not trying to get in a debate about legal issues, a reason as to why the video might not be a foiler because some people were coming up with ideas as to why it was. They were just giving their opinions about the video being a foiler and how the contracts could have played a role, so I brought up a reason as to why someone like Nick or Andi would not want to get that deeply involved. There easily could be many different repercussions because of a video like that.

Ash2214 wrote:You can sue someone for defamation of character quite easily. If Nick willingly did this video to go along with production's master plan, Josh could easily sue him for defamation of character. RS posted that video on his site. Do you know how many people go to his site a month? Can you imagine how many people saw that video through his site or at least know of it and the things that were said? While they weren't extremely harsh, saying a man has a bad temper, only "shits, eats and sleeps" among other things, Josh could 100% go after Nick and ABC without a doubt.

Most likely there is a clause that protects ABC and the production company from any acts of the other participants and holds them harmless.

More importantly, while anyone can sue, proving the statements false is a different matter. In most states, a successful suit would have to prove that the person who defamed did so with malice and intent. As long as the person who defamed could prove that he made the statements in good faith and had reasonable cause to think they were true, it would be hard to prove defamation. The other issue would be determining damages. I think the courts would find that Nick was offering his opinion.

The issue with an employee is completely different. Most employee suits over these kinds of issues are for hostile work environment as opposed to defamation.

I don't believe that the terms of the contract stipulate mandatory indentured servitude for a 2 year post filming period, I suspect that isn't legal. In other words, the producers cannot force the contestants to take part in any and all manner of schemes at their whim, compel them to utter certain things or make public claims that are patently untrue and/or violate the contestant's moral compass. If Nick went along with this supposed foiler, he did so willingly, not because he was forced. Although I don't believe that was the case, because I have a higher opinion of his character than that.

SueSt wrote:

Hotmomma wrote:If the video is a foiler.( which it starting to look like) Andi and Nick both know about.JMO. And since Nick has been sneaky and production must like him to arrange all the extra time with her.

Time will tell.now he is filming in His home town ( who we don't know) could be local tv but a ABC station our local satiation interview local who were on the show,hover not follow them around.

They keep building this "GREAT LOVE" and Fleiss would be jumping up and down if he got his wish of a live wedding at the ATFR! It would be crazy no matter who is F1.

OMG LIVE WEDDING?? Like WHAT?????
Is this something you've heard Hotmomma???

No I haven't..just speculation.