Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Lawns was a bies or methodical, diamabolical combination. Randy Orton,
Speaker 1: known as the Viper, is a superstar in world wrestling
Speaker 1: entertainment who's won fourteen world heavyweight titles. The wrestler also
Speaker 1: stars in the best selling w w E two K
Speaker 1: video games. But it was a tattoo artist who got
Speaker 1: the win in a legal bout over Orton's image in
Speaker 1: the video games. Katherine Alexander sued the w w E
Speaker 1: and the video game maker, saying the five tattoos she
Speaker 1: inked on Orton were used without her permission. The companies
Speaker 1: came back with a defense that it was fair use
Speaker 1: in order to recreate Orton's image in the games. The
Speaker 1: jury gave the win to the tattoo artist, but it
Speaker 1: was like a split decision because the award was for
Speaker 1: just a fraction of what she wanted. My guest is
Speaker 1: intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner Caton Uten Rosenman Terry.
Speaker 1: I've been hearing about a lot of copyright cases involving
Speaker 1: tattoos recently. Is the law in this area settled? No?
Speaker 1: The intellectual property in tattoos remains very unsettled. Demonstrating that
Speaker 1: is two recent jury verdicts we have within the last
Speaker 1: thirty days, one from the Southern District of Illinois captioned
Speaker 1: Alexander versus Take two Interactive Software, and then another one
Speaker 1: coming out of Central District, California, which is Los Angeles
Speaker 1: captioned Brophy versus Almond Sand which apparently is the real
Speaker 1: name of Cardi b the Queen of Rap. And both
Speaker 1: of them came to swet different results and I think
Speaker 1: demonstrate that there's still need form his mouth fluidity in
Speaker 1: the intellectual property surrounding tattoos terry. So the fair use
Speaker 1: defense didn't work for the w w E in this case,
Speaker 1: that's correct. So this is the famous Take two video game.
Speaker 1: W w E two K sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen comes
Speaker 1: out every year, and starting with the w w E
Speaker 1: two K sixteen, they were using as one of the
Speaker 1: on screen wrestlers, Randy Orton. Randy Orton, for those of
Speaker 1: you don't follow the w w E, is thirteen time
Speaker 1: world Champion of the w w E and famous for
Speaker 1: having his upper body heavily tattooed five distinct tattoos, and
Speaker 1: of course, to replicate him in the video game, the
Speaker 1: video game manufacturers had to show him with these tattoos.
Speaker 1: And in advance of releasing the first game that Randy
Speaker 1: was in, which was w W E two K sixteen
Speaker 1: back in the fall two fifteen, they went to his
Speaker 1: tattoo artist, a woman by the name of Catherine Alexander,
Speaker 1: and asked for permission to display these five tattoos on
Speaker 1: his character in the game, and offered her a license
Speaker 1: fee and relatively spaw four hundred fifty dollars, and she
Speaker 1: said no Wara. She said she would never license her
Speaker 1: tattoos to anyone. A couple of years go by and
Speaker 1: she files a lawsuit against the game manufacturer alleging copyright infringement,
Speaker 1: and low behold, it turns out she did have copyright
Speaker 1: registrations in each of the tattoos that she had applied
Speaker 1: to Randy Orton's torso, and the lawsuit went to trial
Speaker 1: back in September, and a jury found in her favor
Speaker 1: found that there was a copyright infringement, but the jury
Speaker 1: award was three thousand, seven fifty dollars, which seems really
Speaker 1: low to me, especially if you consider. I don't know
Speaker 1: if the legal work was on a contingency basis, but
Speaker 1: the lost of trial. You're right, June, this is a
Speaker 1: relatively trivial jury award and in my view, represents a
Speaker 1: compromise on the part of the jury members. You often
Speaker 1: see this in civil lawsuits, where there's some dispute within
Speaker 1: the jury members as to whether or not there should
Speaker 1: be a finding liability in the first place, and the
Speaker 1: compromise usually goes something like this, well, okay, we will
Speaker 1: agree to say that the defendant is liable, and you
Speaker 1: will agree to say that the damages are going to
Speaker 1: be very low. And it's a typical jury compromise when
Speaker 1: the jury doesn't have a consensus. And I'm guessing that's
Speaker 1: exactly what happened here, and you're right. Chances are this
Speaker 1: was on a contingent fee basis. I don't know that
Speaker 1: for a fact, but that's typically the way these are pursued,
Speaker 1: and that would represent not enough money to cover the
Speaker 1: planets attorneys sees not even come close. I happen to
Speaker 1: dull the lead attorney for the defense here, and that
Speaker 1: would have covered only about three hours the first time,
Speaker 1: So it's very much I think victory for the defendant,
Speaker 1: but they would probably have preferred not to have to
Speaker 1: take it to a jury, to have prevailed on summary judgment,
Speaker 1: which has happened in the past with this particular defendant.
Speaker 1: It seems to me like the jury was thinking about,
Speaker 1: you know, the implications because they found that none of
Speaker 1: the profits of the game were attributable to the five tattoos.
Speaker 1: And that makes sense to me, because no one's playing
Speaker 1: the game to look at the tattoos. I think that's
Speaker 1: exactly right. I think the jury probably sat there and
Speaker 1: said to themselves, well, what would have been a reasonable
Speaker 1: license fee here, instead of looking at what the profitability
Speaker 1: of the game was. And it really goes to a
Speaker 1: different question, which is whether or not this case should
Speaker 1: ever got to the jury in the first place. The
Speaker 1: sort of traditional game plan with respect to the defense
Speaker 1: against copyright and tattoos has been three parts. You argue
Speaker 1: that there's a fair use, you argue that there's an
Speaker 1: implied license, and you argue that there's a day minimous use.
Speaker 1: And your comment really goes towards this day minimous use issue.
Speaker 1: You see the tattoos fleetingly. He's one character in the game.
Speaker 1: It's clearly not contributing that much to the game users
Speaker 1: enjoyment of the game. It's simply an identifier of one
Speaker 1: character in the game. And in the past, not that
Speaker 1: there are a ton of lawsuits on tattoos, but in
Speaker 1: the past judges, particularly in the the Southern District, New York,
Speaker 1: have thrown out the copyright and tattoo lawsuits in video
Speaker 1: games on the grounds of the day minimus youth defense.
Speaker 1: They have also been tattoo lawsuits thrown out on the
Speaker 1: grounds of implied license. And after all, the person gets
Speaker 1: a tattoo on a body part, they're going to be
Speaker 1: them leaving the tattoo parlor and walking around in public
Speaker 1: publicly displaying the tattoo with the people. That's usually the
Speaker 1: reason they have a tattoo, so as to show off
Speaker 1: their body art the folks, and the tattoo artist knows that,
Speaker 1: and yet they're letting them walk around with this tattoo
Speaker 1: on them. That has to be an implied license on
Speaker 1: the part of the tattoo artist to allow this person
Speaker 1: to publicly display the tattoo. And that's where reasoning has
Speaker 1: cost tattoo artists in the past. Any chance that even
Speaker 1: getting to a jury. The big surprise with this lawsuit
Speaker 1: was that it even got to the jury in the
Speaker 1: first place. Take to interact, and I've been successful in
Speaker 1: the past on summary judgment with respect to NBA games.
Speaker 1: The NBA players often have tattoos that are displayed in
Speaker 1: these video games, and they had managed to avoid jury
Speaker 1: trials and get some re judgment on an applied license
Speaker 1: or fair use or the minimus us. And here the
Speaker 1: judge in the Sun Distribute Illinois, which probably doesn't get
Speaker 1: a lot of copyright law, said no, I'm not granting
Speaker 1: you some rey judgment. I think there's a factual dispute.
Speaker 1: We'll let the jury sort it out. And so that
Speaker 1: was sort of the unusual thing here. And we'll have
Speaker 1: to see what happens going forward, whether more and more
Speaker 1: of these tattoo cases get to a jury. Money let's
Speaker 1: go now from wrestlers to rappers. Cardibi was sued not
Speaker 1: over her tats, but over the tattoo on the cover
Speaker 1: of her mix tape. The full back tattoos of Kevin
Speaker 1: Trophy showing a tiger fighting a snake, were photoshopped onto
Speaker 1: the back of the model in this sexually explicit cover
Speaker 1: and Brophy sued, saying his publicity and privacy rights were violated.
Speaker 1: So this is a different twist. Sure, this is a
Speaker 1: sort of a different approach by the plaintiff. The plaintiff,
Speaker 1: Mr Brophy was not the tattoo artist, but he had
Speaker 1: obtained over a period time, a very complex tattoo on
Speaker 1: his back of a tiger fighting a snake, actually quite artistic.
Speaker 1: Flash forward a couple of years and Cardie B was
Speaker 1: about to release her breakthrough album This Is in two
Speaker 1: thousand six FT, the album that really made her into
Speaker 1: what she is now, and the album cover was, as
Speaker 1: you described, very racy. It involved a sexual act being
Speaker 1: performed on her by a mail whose back was to
Speaker 1: the camera. And apparently when they looked at the photo
Speaker 1: grafts of this photo session for the album cover, Cardi
Speaker 1: B did not like the back of the model or
Speaker 1: social test by Trout, and so they photo shopped in
Speaker 1: this tattoo of Mr Brophy which they had found somewhere online.
Speaker 1: And there's no dispute that they found his tattoo online
Speaker 1: and photoshopped it onto the back of the actual model
Speaker 1: in this cover. So they used his tattoo. Mr Brophy
Speaker 1: claims that he was humiliated. He was mortified that he
Speaker 1: was embarrassed, psychologically traumatized by this cover of a sexual
Speaker 1: act being out there in the marketplace, and afraid that people,
Speaker 1: including his kids and friends would think this was him
Speaker 1: in real life doing this. And so he brought a
Speaker 1: lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles alleging that the
Speaker 1: use of his tattoo in this album cover was either
Speaker 1: a misappropriation of his likeness or an invasion of privacy
Speaker 1: on a sort of false life theory. And that's what
Speaker 1: this case is different from the case involving the Randy
Speaker 1: Orton tattoo in that there was no copyright allegation here.
Speaker 1: June Cardi B had several defenses. She said on the stand,
Speaker 1: it's not him to me, it doesn't look like his
Speaker 1: back at all. The tattoo was modified and the jury
Speaker 1: sided with her. I'm wondering how much her celebrity had
Speaker 1: to do with the verdict. Well, you would certainly think so.
Speaker 1: My past experience in celebrity cases is that there is
Speaker 1: an influence on the jury. It's not always a positive
Speaker 1: influence the jury. And there's certain celebrities I think Cardi
Speaker 1: B is one of them. Taylor Swift, who if they're
Speaker 1: involved in the case. President the courtroom, I think the
Speaker 1: jury does sort of slant toward them, so that may
Speaker 1: have happened here. Cardie b is very popular, like kids,
Speaker 1: referred to as the Queen of Wrap, and so I
Speaker 1: think that there's no way you can't help but do that.
Speaker 1: The other thing that happened during the trial is that
Speaker 1: the attorney for the plaintiff for Mr. Brophy, got into
Speaker 1: it with her, and the attorney pushed the line a bit,
Speaker 1: and she pushed back and took great umbrage understand that
Speaker 1: anyone would claim that somehow their tattoo was responsible for
Speaker 1: the enormous success of this album and her music, and indeed,
Speaker 1: she went so far as to paint this is yet
Speaker 1: another case of a patriarchal society trying to deny that
Speaker 1: a woman was able to create something successful in the marketplace.
Speaker 1: And I think that as much as her public celebrity,
Speaker 1: was very influential with the jury here. So considering all
Speaker 1: these verdicts, who has the leverage and negotiations Because the
Speaker 1: tattoo artist won the Randy Orton case, but the award was,
Speaker 1: as we've discussed, paltry the issue here, June is that
Speaker 1: the law is not sufficiently mature, not developed at the
Speaker 1: appellate level so that litigants know what their rights are
Speaker 1: with some certainty. I think at some point the circuit
Speaker 1: course will say that there is as a matter of
Speaker 1: law and implied the license here to publicly display the copyrights,
Speaker 1: and or a demonimous use defense. The fair use defense
Speaker 1: is hard to make out in all these cases. I
Speaker 1: don't think that'll be successful. But if that's the way
Speaker 1: we come down, that the law is a little bit
Speaker 1: on the side of the user as opposed to the
Speaker 1: tattoo artist or in the Brophy case, stuff tattoo, where
Speaker 1: I think the leverage is really against the tattoo artist.
Speaker 1: And we certainly see with this one verdict out of
Speaker 1: the Southern District Illinois that juries just don't think this
Speaker 1: is worth much, and that will make it a lot
Speaker 1: easier for the litigants to settle these cases, probably on
Speaker 1: the low side. Now, there's another side to this equation,
Speaker 1: which is when the end user, either CARDI B using
Speaker 1: this photo for album or video game manufacturer using it
Speaker 1: in a video game, whether they really want to incur
Speaker 1: these substantial legal fees that are involved, because even though
Speaker 1: A two Interactive was only hit by the jury Verdi
Speaker 1: for fifty dollars, they spent at least a million dollars,
Speaker 1: probably more on the legal fees, none of which come
Speaker 1: back to them. Same in the Cardi B case, probably
Speaker 1: spent taking this case to trial a million dollars. And
Speaker 1: it seems to me it would make more sense for
Speaker 1: the end user of these tattoos in secondary creative works
Speaker 1: to go to whoever owns the intellectual property rights in
Speaker 1: the tattoo and negotiate something up front, and four fifty dollars,
Speaker 1: as we saw in the Alexander case, is not going
Speaker 1: to get it done, and to offer them, you know,
Speaker 1: several thousands of dollars, which is certainly a lot less
Speaker 1: than the million dollars attorneys fees, and also diminishes risk,
Speaker 1: which is something that big companies are always looking for.
Speaker 1: Practically speaking, Let's say one of these companies take too Interactive,
Speaker 1: can't come to an agreement with the tattoo artist. Isn't
Speaker 1: it pretty easy for them to obscure the tattoos or
Speaker 1: change the tattoos enough in the video game that they
Speaker 1: won't be responsible. Well, that's where this minimust youth defense
Speaker 1: comes in and has been successful in the past. That
Speaker 1: the play here is in motion, you just get a
Speaker 1: glimpse of that tattoo. So the majority of the game
Speaker 1: does not involve looking at tattoos or seeing the tattoos,
Speaker 1: and so it seems like it should be covered by
Speaker 1: the day men use defense. The problem with the case
Speaker 1: in the Southern District Illinois is that the Seventh Circuit
Speaker 1: has never dealt with the issue of demonimous use. Illinois
Speaker 1: is part of the Seventh Circuit, which is based in
Speaker 1: Chicago in the states surrounding Illinois, and they just simply
Speaker 1: haven't dealt with it, whereas Second Circuit in the Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuit have and have established pretty strong to unanimous use defenses.
Speaker 1: And so the district court judge here said, well, they've
Speaker 1: never decided it, so I'll just let the jury consider
Speaker 1: whether the facts established it or not. Arguably wrong, but
Speaker 1: that's the way it went um. So again, going forward,
Speaker 1: it just seems like an easy thing for game manufacturer
Speaker 1: to go to the tattoo artist or the tattoo where
Speaker 1: and and buy out the rights for a few thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: I mean, going forward, if there are more of these cases.
Speaker 1: If the game companies don't learn their lesson, do you
Speaker 1: think that this will be an area that's more defined
Speaker 1: than legally. The curious thing here, June, is that we've
Speaker 1: not had any of these court cases go up on
Speaker 1: appeal to circuit courts, so we just don't have appellate law,
Speaker 1: and tattoos are everywhere. It's different than music. Music cases
Speaker 1: are where uh New York Second Circuit, uh, Nashville, Detroit
Speaker 1: six Circuit, Los Angeles Ninth Circuit. So you have well
Speaker 1: developed law with respect of music cases. Art cases you
Speaker 1: see heavily in the Second Circuit New York. Movies, television
Speaker 1: cases you see heavily in on the West Coast Ninth Circuit.
Speaker 1: Tattoos are everywhere. I mean tell them just to Illinois.
Speaker 1: Hown't seen a copyright case there and forever, and so
Speaker 1: you just can't be sure where the next one is
Speaker 1: going to come. We do know that there's going to
Speaker 1: be a trial in one of these NBA video game
Speaker 1: cases in a Hio in the spring of assuming it
Speaker 1: doesn't get settled or pushed off, and again that's yet
Speaker 1: another court that gets to decide these. So we're just
Speaker 1: not seeing them brought consistently in one place where one
Speaker 1: of them gets up to the circuit court, the circuit
Speaker 1: court renders some law, clarifies the situation, and then we
Speaker 1: move forward with some certainty. It's just very odd that
Speaker 1: the cases have been very diffused, just brought everywhere. And
Speaker 1: we'll see what happens in this upcoming case where a
Speaker 1: tattoo artist who inked NBA players including Lebron James and
Speaker 1: Tristan Thompson, is suing the maker of the video game
Speaker 1: NBA two K. Thanks so much for your insights as always, Terry.
Speaker 1: That's intellectual property litigator Terence Ross of Captain Yuchen Rosenman.
Speaker 1: When a star athlete and a supermodel get divorced, it's
Speaker 1: sure to make headlines. Although Tom Brady and Gazelle Bunch
Speaker 1: and have tried to quell any media frenzy by coming
Speaker 1: to a quick settlement and issuing corresponding statements on Instagram
Speaker 1: about their divorce after thirteen years of marriage and two children,
Speaker 1: and Brady addressed the divorce on his podcast. Obviously, the
Speaker 1: good news is things that it's a very amicable situation,
Speaker 1: and I'm really focused on two things and take care
Speaker 1: of my family and certainly my children, and secondly doing
Speaker 1: the best job I can to win football games. So
Speaker 1: that's what professionals do. You focus at work when it's
Speaker 1: time to work, and when you come home, you focus
Speaker 1: on the priorities that are at home, and all you
Speaker 1: can do is the best you could do. And that's
Speaker 1: what I'll just continue to do, is as long as
Speaker 1: I'm working, as long as I'm being a dad. Joining
Speaker 1: me is divorce attorney Christopher Melcher, a partner Walter Melcher,
Speaker 1: and Yodah. Their statements tracked each other, bunching in an
Speaker 1: Instagram story set with much gratitude for our time together,
Speaker 1: Tom and I have amicably finalized our divorce, Brady said,
Speaker 1: we arrived at this decision amicably and with gratitude for
Speaker 1: the time we spent together there and they both talked
Speaker 1: about their children, asked the public to respect their privacy.
Speaker 1: Does that indicate that this was a well worked out divorce? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: The statements on social media were released by each of
Speaker 1: them and around the same time. It wasn't a joint statement,
Speaker 1: but the statements were very similar and indicate that they
Speaker 1: have resolved things amicably and that they're going forward, just
Speaker 1: really as co parents and trying to focus on their
Speaker 1: kids and let this kind of get behind them. The
Speaker 1: petition for dissolution of marriage was just three pages. So
Speaker 1: somewhere else, I take it is the legal document about
Speaker 1: how they're splitting things up. Yeah, so they have to
Speaker 1: file a case in public court to get a divorce,
Speaker 1: and so that started, which zel filing a petition for dissolution,
Speaker 1: and then the next step will be to ask the
Speaker 1: court jointly to enter a judgment of divorce, and that
Speaker 1: would return them to status a single people and most
Speaker 1: spouses will then also tell the court what the terms
Speaker 1: of their settlement are with regard to property and kids
Speaker 1: and support. Here, my guess is they will keep that
Speaker 1: confidential and um not put that in the judgment, so
Speaker 1: we don't get to see that. Uh, and there will
Speaker 1: be no orders on it either. It would just be
Speaker 1: a confidential settlement agreement between the two of them, and
Speaker 1: no one would put it into a court file unless
Speaker 1: someone broke the agreement and needed to be enforced. That's
Speaker 1: typically how these deals are run. So it seems incredibly quick,
Speaker 1: but apparently they were negotiating about it and hired lawyers
Speaker 1: at the beginning of October, so it's taken about a
Speaker 1: month for them to resolve this. It could have taken
Speaker 1: even longer than that. The story started to break about
Speaker 1: the couple having problems, but they may have been experiencing
Speaker 1: these problem is much earlier and working on a divorce
Speaker 1: settlement for quite some time. And for me doing these
Speaker 1: type of cases, that's the ideal situation is to work
Speaker 1: all the details out before the public knows of the split,
Speaker 1: and then um we then announced or the couple announces
Speaker 1: that they're splitting around the same time as we're announcing
Speaker 1: the settlement. So it's possible that they were able to
Speaker 1: arrange all these details in a month, but my my
Speaker 1: suspicion is it would have taken much longer than that
Speaker 1: because there's a lot of complexity when you have that
Speaker 1: much wealth, and also complexity around how they're going to
Speaker 1: share time with their kids in a way that's acceptable
Speaker 1: and best for the children. So to think that they
Speaker 1: did all that in a month is unlikely. One of
Speaker 1: the most controversial parts of a divorce is often who'll
Speaker 1: get custody of the children. Well, they both said they
Speaker 1: agreed to join custody, and she said we'll continue co parenting.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's that's all it says joint custody
Speaker 1: or there is a lot more about times and places,
Speaker 1: etcetera in the final agreement. So joint custody is a
Speaker 1: very broad term which could mean a lot of different things.
Speaker 1: It certainly does not always mean equal time, and in
Speaker 1: most cases we parents don't equally share time with their children.
Speaker 1: It's it's gonna be very difficult to do that when
Speaker 1: one or both parents are working a lot, and children
Speaker 1: also sometimes want to have a home base and they
Speaker 1: just want to have a place where they're regularly staying,
Speaker 1: and then they just spend substantial time with the other parents.
Speaker 1: So here Tom is working a lot and that takes
Speaker 1: him away from Florida often, so you know, he couldn't
Speaker 1: have the hands on parenting at least while he's engaged
Speaker 1: in that work schedule that a parent who works locally
Speaker 1: could have. So there's going to have to be some
Speaker 1: give and take between the couple, And it sounds like
Speaker 1: they've achieved or worked out out so that um when
Speaker 1: Tom is away, obviously the kids would be with Gazelle,
Speaker 1: but then hopefully when Tom is in town that he
Speaker 1: would have that time to kind of offset it to
Speaker 1: keep the relationship going. And it might surprise some that
Speaker 1: Buncheon is worth almost twice as much reportedly according to
Speaker 1: Celebrity net Worth as Brady is. What would a prenup cover? Generally,
Speaker 1: I would anticipate that this couple had a premarital agreement
Speaker 1: because both of them brought significant wealth into the marriage,
Speaker 1: and most of these prenups for a couple like this
Speaker 1: would say that they're each going to keep their own
Speaker 1: premarital property, and any property that either of them acquires
Speaker 1: during marriage would be their own, and there might not
Speaker 1: be any shared property unless they decide to take title
Speaker 1: to let's stay at home family residents jointly, than they
Speaker 1: would make that their joint property. But many times these
Speaker 1: marriages between two celebs will involve a complete separate estate
Speaker 1: for each one of them, and I can't imagine that
Speaker 1: there would be any spousal supporter alimony here. There could
Speaker 1: be child support, but again it you know, at these
Speaker 1: levels of wealth, nobody needs any money, and in a way,
Speaker 1: that makes it a lot easier to solve these cases
Speaker 1: because the money is not scarce and we're low asset cases,
Speaker 1: which most families. You know, it's defined is not having
Speaker 1: a lot of assets to split maybe a house and
Speaker 1: a retirement account. It's very difficult. Those two me are
Speaker 1: the scariest cases because you know, there's not going to
Speaker 1: be enough money to go around in that family to
Speaker 1: maintain the standard of living that they had together. Because
Speaker 1: they're now living in two households on the same amount
Speaker 1: of money. Something's got to give, and it's going to
Speaker 1: be lifestyle. This couple has none of those concerns, So
Speaker 1: you think that there might actually not even be uh
Speaker 1: provision for child support, that's right. I can't imagine that
Speaker 1: there would be any child support paid here. I mean
Speaker 1: the law might, you know, technically provide for it, as
Speaker 1: somebody asked. But usually in these cases, they're just going
Speaker 1: to go their separate ways. They may have kept all
Speaker 1: of their assets and income separate to begin with, so
Speaker 1: there may not have been a lot of mixing, and
Speaker 1: there's really no need for any support. I mean, both
Speaker 1: of these spouses, you know, make tremendous amounts of money,
Speaker 1: so there's there's no need for reallocating income between the
Speaker 1: two of them for support purposes. I found this interesting.
Speaker 1: They have four different houses that they purchased during their marriage.
Speaker 1: So it's possible that even those weren't purchased jointly, that
Speaker 1: they might be in one one's name or the other
Speaker 1: and not have to be split. I didn't check the
Speaker 1: title of these things, and many times these are held
Speaker 1: not even in their own names. They're held usually in
Speaker 1: an entity that's created by the couple, And so it
Speaker 1: makes it very difficult sometimes to see who really owns
Speaker 1: this property. But we will, you know, see a couple
Speaker 1: purchase a home together, and even though they have separate estates,
Speaker 1: symbolically they kind of want to feel like this is
Speaker 1: our home and not you know, their spouses home. So really,
Speaker 1: I guess for symbolic reasons, they will oftentimes purchase a
Speaker 1: home together. But that's about it. And and so there
Speaker 1: may not be any other shared property here after the
Speaker 1: divorce the property is split, and money issues we're assuming
Speaker 1: there are none. But even though they say that they're
Speaker 1: going to continue to co parent Mike, problems arise in
Speaker 1: the future about the custody arrangements anyway, or about out
Speaker 1: you know, decisions about the children's lives, where they're going
Speaker 1: to go to school, for example, things like that, Well,
Speaker 1: in In most divorces, there's going to be some lingering
Speaker 1: issues involving kids, and that can be disputes over changes
Speaker 1: of time spent with the children or maybe even a
Speaker 1: relocation out of state, or issues of child support. So
Speaker 1: that's a common feature post judgment of a divorce case.
Speaker 1: It's unlikely to happen here because of the level of
Speaker 1: attention that this couple had on their marriage. It was
Speaker 1: even though they're both famous, it was really surprising to
Speaker 1: me that there was this much media attention on their split.
Speaker 1: And that's one of the reasons why I think that
Speaker 1: they settled so quickly, because it was just embarrassing and
Speaker 1: kind of harmful probably to them to have this much attention.
Speaker 1: So any dispute that they would have going forward would
Speaker 1: have to be so serious is to justify airing that
Speaker 1: out in a public corp proceeding. So I got to
Speaker 1: imagine that this scrutiny that's inherent here would keep the
Speaker 1: parents on their best behavior, would keep them in a
Speaker 1: settlement minded mode, not only to protect their own brand
Speaker 1: or reputation, but to protect their kids because their children
Speaker 1: will see all of this and social media and reporting,
Speaker 1: and it's really embarrassing to those kids, and the dispute
Speaker 1: would have to warrant putting those kids and themselves through
Speaker 1: all of that anguish, and I can't really imagine what
Speaker 1: that would be. But we have seen, like with Brad
Speaker 1: Pitt and Angelina and Jolie, having sixtures of litigation and
Speaker 1: dragging all that through, and it's just really I question
Speaker 1: how any of that could be worth it. I'm surprised
Speaker 1: that you're surprised that this divorce got so much attention
Speaker 1: because he's such a big football star, she's a supermodel.
Speaker 1: It seems made for the tabloids to well it is,
Speaker 1: and you know, they're they're a young, beautiful, successful couple.
Speaker 1: But you know, hey, this is common. You know every
Speaker 1: everyday issues here that people get married and it doesn't
Speaker 1: work out and they get divorced and they move forward.
Speaker 1: And there was no controversy here. And I guess that's
Speaker 1: what's surprising me. There were no allegations to misconduct and
Speaker 1: there was no bizarre behavior, and so you know, why
Speaker 1: is it? What is it the interest that we all
Speaker 1: have in the stories and that that's just a curiosity
Speaker 1: to me, and I guess I'm desensitized to it. Because
Speaker 1: I'm working with celebrities in divorce and I know that
Speaker 1: they're just like the rest of us. They have the
Speaker 1: same problems that we all do. But they also didn't
Speaker 1: have the media attention element that none of us face
Speaker 1: if we're going through divorce. Yeah, Brady mentioned that on
Speaker 1: the media attention element on his podcast. You've represented a
Speaker 1: list celebrities. What's easier in a divorce and what's more
Speaker 1: difficult than a divorce with a celebrity involved or two celebrities. Well,
Speaker 1: when you have two celebrity couple you know, are both
Speaker 1: spouses or celebrities, the media attention on it makes it
Speaker 1: very difficult to make a deal. Uh, And that that's
Speaker 1: why most of these folks will do things quietly and
Speaker 1: it's very difficult to keep this a secret. But before
Speaker 1: the breakup is announced, we'll try to work all this
Speaker 1: stuff out so they can have some space or privacy
Speaker 1: to do so. When the story breaks and it's it's
Speaker 1: known that there's a problem in the relationship, then there's
Speaker 1: intense scrutiny on why they're breaking up. And we have
Speaker 1: people coming out of the woodwork and making statements or allegations,
Speaker 1: and that can really disrupt the settlement process and you know,
Speaker 1: slow it down. I mean, we're, like I say, they're
Speaker 1: they're just regular humans here. And so if somebody's coming
Speaker 1: out and there's some cheating allegations that are now become public,
Speaker 1: it is very hurtful and difficult for people to emotionally
Speaker 1: move forward. And so that that's the struggle. I think
Speaker 1: that makes it hard. The fact that they have a
Speaker 1: lot of money. A lot of times people say, oh,
Speaker 1: it must be so hard to settle those cases or
Speaker 1: to go to court one because there's so much money,
Speaker 1: and no, it's actually easier because there's money and they
Speaker 1: can hire professionals and they can afford to, you know,
Speaker 1: go through that process where the rest of us, you know,
Speaker 1: I find it very difficult. So I would just say
Speaker 1: it's the media attention. And then my focus and my
Speaker 1: reminders to clients is that their kids are seeing this,
Speaker 1: and every child is impacted by their parents divorce and
Speaker 1: the immediate family and friends are going to know about it.
Speaker 1: But when you add celebrity parents to the mix, everybody
Speaker 1: knows about that. And I'm trying to put myself in
Speaker 1: that child's position and relate that to the parents and
Speaker 1: let them know like this is out there forever and
Speaker 1: how difficult that's going to be, and keep the focus
Speaker 1: on on their kids. This I think most people who
Speaker 1: look at this divorce or like this is nothing like
Speaker 1: me because of the amounts of money involved in the
Speaker 1: celebrity as we talked about, is there anything that the
Speaker 1: average person can learn from this split up? So we
Speaker 1: all can learn from this and and um with celebrities
Speaker 1: are supposed to be or hopefully role models here and examples.
Speaker 1: We haven't seen a lot of good examples lately, but
Speaker 1: this is one of them where if they're going to
Speaker 1: break up, and I'm sure they tried very hard to
Speaker 1: keep the relationship going, but if they're going to break up,
Speaker 1: to do it in a dignified way, and that there
Speaker 1: was a lot at stake here in terms of money
Speaker 1: and kids. But this couple was able to solve this
Speaker 1: problem quickly and quietly. And you know, why is it
Speaker 1: that people who don't have a lot of money will
Speaker 1: spend pretty much everything they have fighting with each other.
Speaker 1: And that's what I've seen as a divorce lawyer, is
Speaker 1: that these problems are all the same. There's more money
Speaker 1: attached to some of the cases and others. But they're
Speaker 1: all the same in that their spouses or co parents
Speaker 1: that aren't getting along, they're breaking up, they have to
Speaker 1: deal with some financial issues and some kid issues. It's
Speaker 1: not rocket science. And why is it that some will
Speaker 1: settle quickly and others will spend potentially the rest of
Speaker 1: their life fighting with each other and allowing that to
Speaker 1: define themselves. So that the takeaway here is it doesn't
Speaker 1: have to be that way. They can do this, and
Speaker 1: of course it takes two people to do that, and
Speaker 1: so I think this is equally reflective and it only
Speaker 1: could have been accomplished by having two decent, reasonable spouses
Speaker 1: that put their kids interests in their own joint interests
Speaker 1: ahead of any selfish interests that they have. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being on the show, Chris. That's divorce attorney Christopher Melcher,
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: week night at ten p m. Wall Street time, I'm
Speaker 1: June Grossow and you're listening to Bloomberg