George Santos is suing Jimmy Kimmel for buying Cameos from him under false pretenses
"Can you imagine if I get sued by George Santos for fraud?" Kimmel asked on his show—months before Santos did, in fact, sue him
Aux News George Santos
In some ways, it feels like disgraced and expelled New York Congressman George Santos is finally living his best life—in so far as his brief run in public office always seemed kind of like it was little more than a trial run for becoming some kind of horrifying new breed of online celebrity. Hence, presumably, his prominent post-Congressional placement on “Buy a birthday message from your least favorite Office character” service Cameo, where he’s been selling his mug for $500 a pop of late.
Said practice is now at the center of a new legal threat, as the New York Post reports that Santos has sued late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, alleging that Kimmel and his staff bought at least 14 Cameos from him under false names, and then “misused” them by broadcasting them on Jimmy Kimmel Live! as part of a segment titled “Will Santos Say It?” And while a lawsuit does seem like a pretty harsh way to respond to someone who gave you $7,000 for about 1o minutes of work, it’s not like Kimmel didn’t see it coming; he joked about the possibility while airing the segment late last year, saying “Can you imagine if I get sued by George Santos for fraud? How good would that be? It would be like a dream come true.”
Santos’ suit references that statement, and he gave his own to the Post this weekend, saying, in what we guess qualifies as a joke, that “Jimmy, sorry that my Christmas gift to you came late, but here’s to making wishes come true.” (Seriously, few people have ever been more clearly desperate to be the “funny guy in the office” as disgraced Congressperson George Santos.) He’s apparently seeking $750,000 in damages, and has named ABC and Disney in the suit.
66 Comments
I am not a lawyer but I play one on the Internet and it seems like Santos might have a case if the videos were licensed for non-commercial use only. (I never used Cameo but apparently they have distinct personal and business services.) That Kimmel joked about being sued could be considered an indication that he knew he was committing fraud. (I don’t think “I was kidding” is the absolute defense some people think it is.)I don’t know how you would come up with $750,000 in damages though, other than the rule of ask for a lot in hopes that you get a little.
Yeah, unless Kimmel and crew broke contract terms I don’t know what kind of relief he could get. Santos didn’t lose any money over this and it’s impossible for his reputation to sink any lower than it is.
“That Kimmel joked about being sued could be considered an indication that he knew he was committing fraud.”Or it could be an indication that Disney’s legal team gave them the go-ahead.
Santos (if that is his real name) isn’t suing for the money.
He’s an attention whore.
Fair point.
Thanks, yeah, I think we all got that.
All evidence to the contrary.
rock the fucking vote.
It’s compulsory where I live.
https://legal.cameo.com/termsofservice#ownership Pretty clear that the “Talent User”/Content creator is the owner of the videos they make. So, interesting. He may have a case indeed.
“I am not a lawyer but I play one on the Internet”
Yeah, you and everyone else on the Rust thread.
So does he have a case? Can a cameo be used in a commercial broadcast without permission from person appearing in tbe cameo? Not like I expect the AV Club to do any heavy lifting on this or any other topic, but maybe someone read a better article somewhere else and knows the answer.
I have to imagine this premise had to pass ABC/Disney legal first, and if they were fine it…
I don’t know, what if it falls under parody claims?
Are you talking about Kimmel’s use of the Cameos or Santos’ whole career?
If that’s true, I know of a handful of podcasters, comedians, and YouTubers who are about to get sued just by that Real Life Peter Griffen guy alone
“Shut up, Clayton.”
My guess, and this is just a guess: it’s like broadcast rights/rerun rights and because Cameo is a new kind of media…jesus, I don’t know. Who owns Cameo? I imagine there have to be some kind of broadcast/rebroadcast rights issues. And I can’t imagine, as someone else has said, that ABC parent company DISNEY didn’t legally vet this thouroughly. I bet (yeah this is all conjecture, okay?) that Cameo recordings are property of Cameo, and Cameo can do what they want with them, and Cameo gave the legal go-ahead, likely for remunerative compensation. I mean, it just seems self-evident almost to me that if you record something for Cameo, you’re recording it FOR Cameo. Cameo isn’t owned by Disney, is it? That would be perfect. *[edit] https://legal.cameo.com/termsofservice#ownership Boy am I wrong!!! Creator content is the property of the creator. So, it guess it’s legal because it’s like showing the Cameo video to your friends?? This HAS to have been okayed firmly and ironcladedly by Disney legal!!
Bolding NOT mine, it’s that way on the Cameo site:Subject to your payment in full, the Talent User hereby grants to you the following limited rights to use the CAMEO Video (other than a Business CAMEO Video) solely for your own personal, non-commercial, and non-promotional purposes, subject to these Terms: a non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid, worldwide, sublicensable, revocable license to use, reproduce, distribute, and publicly display that CAMEO Video, in any and all media (for example, on social media platforms), whether now known or hereafter invented or devised.
So it may come down to whether this was a “business cameo” video or not from the sounds of that.
“business cameo”, in the business of giving you the business. And business is booming.
That does seem like Kimmel’s team breached the contract, but that doesn’t make it fraud.I’m not a lawyer, but I think Santos will have to prove actual economic harm for it to rise to fraud.And even on the beach claim, those terms of service are a contract between Cameo and the buyer. Unknown whether the contract grants third-party beneficiary righs to the continent maker; if not, then Santos can’t even sue Kimmel for breach of contract, because there is no contract between them.
So if Santos retains ownership and Kimmel shows it commercially (which isn’t the same as showing it to friends) then Santos might at least get to settle for some stupidly small sum
“settle for some stupidly small sum” – in his case, getting his name in the paper one more time.
Sure, why not? You people were stupid enough to vote for him, I’m sure he can find a judge stupid enough to take more of his horseshit seriously.
Not in the slightest.
Odds are very low
Fraud, but he took that money didn’t he?Also, fuck anybody who paid Santos for a cameo.
I don’t get why Kimmel gives someone like Santos any kind of platform. Let him fuck around for his famous 15 minutes and then be forgotten, instead highlighting him on shows and at worst even give more money to him.
People like him should be forgotten and not given the spotlight they so much want. And we know that he doesn’t give a flying fuck about how he looks in public eye. So you won’t hurt him with that.
I don’t think “no such thing as bad publicity” works here considering he was kicked out of Congress after less than 11 months.
Sure. But does he really care about it? I mean, except not getting the money. Does he really care that people see him as a joke?
He just continues his grift and will do everything to get the spotlight shine on him, because without it he is a completle nobody, even next to all the nutjob MAGAs he would be most likely forgotten in months.
He is a Madison Cawthorn at best. That would disappear in the masses of craziness that the Republicans are…if the media would finally stop bringing him back.And Kimmel is helping right now to do give him exactly what he needs.
Have you considered that maybe he’s not the best judge of what’s good for him?
No we haven’t. And we shouldn’t have to. This man whatever it identifies as (today) is a dangerous maniac who should be locked away.
But he was elected. We moan about people who don’t come out and vote; but people who do are stupid enough to vote for assholes like this. Is there any way we can find out who voted for him and treat them like felons…i.e. strip them of the right to vote any more?
He was elected before people knew what kind of person he is.
I’ve wondered before if campaigns or parties send google maps-type cars around to map which addresses have which lawn signs. I live in Santos’ former district and his signs were everywhere. I wish I’d kept one, but who knew.
It’s content for Kimmel’s show, which you don’t have to watch.
My wife watches the big three talk show clips daily except for Fallon. At some point over the past year she dropped Seth Meyers for Kimmel. Meyers did solid work during the Trump administration but ultimately is just too corny. Kimmel’s tenacity won her over.
Humor is such a subjective thing.
I feel the same way about Donald John, but whaddya gonna do?
Exactly, giving this fucktard 7K just for some lame bits is vile.
It’s content for Kimmel’s show. That’s the answer to your implied question. You can dismiss this again all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact it’s an easy way to fill time on a late night comedy chat show.
If you don’t find it funny or interesting, then don’t watch. I don’t. But implying it’s going to cause any kind of societal damage more so than already exists is a stretch. Kimmel’s making fun at Santos’s expense this week. Next week it’ll be someone else. None of this is meant to be taken seriously.
What don’t you get? Kimmel needs to fill an hour every night, and this is his is his kind of bit.I mean, I applaud the guy for his evolution since the Man Show, but it’s not like he’s out there to save the world. Kimmel’s always felt like the spiritual heir to Leno to me, and he’s gotta have his Dancing Itos. (I don’t think I’ve ever made it through a full episode of this show, but I do remember a bunch of inappropriate bleeping clips that I’ve enjoyed.)
Because at this point politics is entertainment and entertainment is politics. Look at the last POTUS.
he didn’t give him a platform. he paid him to make fun of himself. He didn’t invite him onto his show to explain his case. you guys throw that term around a lot. Well anybody that did something horrible and interviewed by a journalist is giving them a platform too if that is the case.
People like him should be forgottenNO! While he shouldn’t be repeatedly brought up as a punchline, he most certainly should not be forgotten. He needs to be seriously noted as a failure of our electoral system, in an effort to prevent it happening again. But using him as a joke diminishes the harm that he and his ilk cause.
Careful, this “JoshTyrReece” seems to dismiss comments they disagree with.
I’ve just mentioned twice that it’s content for Kimmel’s show, and if you don’t find it funny or interesting, then don’t watch. I don’t. But implying it’s going to cause any kind of societal damage more so than already exists is a stretch.
Clip starts at 6:52.
If you are failed con man George Santos/Anthony Devolder, maybe don’t draw attention to yourself?
Emilio, you should have more respect for the black lesbian woman who solved Fermat’s Last Theorem back in 1950 while earning two Purple Hearts and a Medal of Honor at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir.
You forgot Olympic volleyball medallist.
Failed? He has to be among the best. This guy is going to be a footnote/curiosity for centuries.
Kimmel didn’t purchase those cameos, though. They were bequeathed to him by his grandfather, the 8th Earl of Hardwicke.
Something something Lord Beef-on-Weck.
You mean that wizard school for ginger kids?
Kimmel is one notch above Santos on the scum bag ladder.
George Santos presents: Jew-ish Latino Lesbian Volleyball Champions Jumping On Trampolines!
Dun-dun-dah…dun-dun-da-daaah, dun-dun-dah DAH!
No way, he’s at least one notch above Adam Carolla. And then transitive property and all that.(And if your argument is that Carolla and Santos are both down at the same level, then your measuring stick needs more notches.)
Lol, my point is that they are all scum bags, with different degrees of being one. Kimmel is the ultimate “Hey look over here and forget about all of the racist, sexist, homophobic material that I put out for years because I’m on a big network TV show and that doesn’t look good.”
It’s genuinely impressive that Jimmy Kimmel is still relevant after hosting The Man Show in the 90s with Adam Corolla. I don’t voice this thought often enough.
We’ll always have Win Ben Stein’s Money. <3
UNLIKE Mr. Corolla, Jimmy Kimmel has earned my respect for calling out Jay Leno on the Tonight Show.
Jimmy Kimmel, seen here showing us the t-shirt he made himself with iron-on letters from Hobby Lobby.
In the real world, it doesn’t really matter if Santos has an actual claim or not. He named ABC/Disney, which means he is voluntarily choosing to go up against Disney’s legal juggernaut. My guess is that Santos will either A: settle for a much, much lower sum dictated by Disney (aka the write-off amount it’s worth to Disney to just not bother dealing with this at all), or B: pursue the full amount in court, thereby enacting the courtroom equivalent of suicide-by-cop.
Nothing about this comment makes sense.Yes, it absolutely does “really matter if Santos has an actual claim” as to whether Disney settles. If he has no claim, they’ll get it tossed on a pretrial motion to dismiss and move on with their day.And, no, losing in court is in no way equivalent to”suicide by cop”.