John Travota Case Summary

The issue in this case is whether Rolling Stone magazine made a defamatory representation of John Travolta by publishing an altered picture of him that depicted him as dancing while naked in the body of a pornography star’s body.

Rule

For one to sue for defamation, the cited statement or image that caused the defamation must achieve a certain criteria. Since the case involves a picture, it is a case of libel, which John Travolta must prove it that it was published, injurious, false, and unprivileged. Publishing means that a third party must have seen the picture. A defamation case cannot leave the ground if any other person except the two parties involved did not see the purported defamatory statement or picture. The second element is that the picture must be injurious. It means that the publishing of the picture or defamatory statement must have caused the plaintiff injury of character, financial harm, emotional anguish or any other effect

In addition, the published magazine issued the copy to millions of subscribers and thus millions of people saw the picture. As such, the case satisfies one element of ‘publishing’. The publishing of the picture injured Mr. Travolta’s character and further caused him emotional anguish because the picture depicted him as a man of questionable morals and character. The published picture also constituted a false statement because it represented an altered image, which did not depict the true situation John Travolta was in while he acted in the movie. John Travolta was not naked while he danced in the movie and as such, the picture is not a true representation. The rolling Stone magazine did not have the privilege to alter John Travolta’s picture and further to publish the picture without his consent. Based on these observations the case fulfills the four elements required for a defamation