Chess Star Sues Netflix Because Queen’s Gambit Erased Her Accolades

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/gaming/chess-star-sues-netflix-because-queens-gambit-erased-her-accolades/ar-AAOAGTI?ocid=msedgdhp


Kotaku
Chess Star Sues Netflix Because Queen’s Gambit Erased Her Accolades
Zack Zwiezen 18 hrs ago

House Democrats are scared to tax billionaires – that’s a costly mistake
Last two escaped Palestinian prisoners recaptured after Israeli manhunt that…

Female Soviet chess legend Nona Gaprindashvili is suing Netflix for $5 million after a scene in the hit show Queen’s Gambit falsely claimed she had never played against men. In fact, she claims to have played and beaten dozens of men. In the suit, Gaprindashvili called the incorrect dialogue “grossly sexist”.

Anya Taylor-Joy sitting at a table© Image: Netflix
The lawsuit was filed in LA district court on September 16 and is focused mostly on one scene in the Queen’s Gambit. The popular Netflix show is about a fictional American chess player named Beth Harmon who rises up the ranks to become a globally successful chess legend. In the finale of the series, during one scene, a commentator watching Harmon play directly references real-life chess star Gaprindashvili and her career.

“Elizabeth Harmon’s not at all an important player by their standards,” explained the announcer. “The only unusual thing about her, really, is her sex. And even that’s not unique in Russia. There’s Nona Gaprindashvili, but she’s the female world champion and has never faced men.”

At this point, Queen’s Gambit is set in the year 1968. According to the lawsuit filed by Gaprindashvili, by this point in time, she had already played and defeated many men in chess, including 10 grandmasters.

Read More: Chess Is An Esport, According To Twitch Star And Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura
In the suit, the 80-year-old calls the line and the claim she had never played men “manifestly false”. She is suing Netflix for false light invasion of privacy and defamation.

The lawsuit continues, harshly criticizing Netflix for its choice to change history and claiming the company had “brazenly and deliberately lied” about her achievements “For the cheap and cynical purpose of ‘heightening the drama’ by making it appear that its fictional hero had managed to do what no other woman, including Gaprindashvili, had done.”

Netflix said in a statement to the LA Times that the streamer had the “utmost respect” for the legendary chess player, but believes the lawsuit “has no merit” and “will vigorously defend the case.”

In an interview with the New York Times, Gaprindashvili found the whole situation ironic. “[Netflix] was trying to do this fictional character who was blazing the trail for other women, when in reality I had already blazed the trail and inspired generations.”

She is right, she has a solid case. I expect her to be awarded the money requested if it goes to court and the court decides. But it may be settled out of court and a lesser amount. I think it that happens she should not accept less that 3 million.
I have played chess since age 15, that is 52 years and counting. I play chees several times a week even now but I had stopped right after my mom died 4 years ago- did not start back playing again until about 3 months ago..
I watched that movie with my son Justin and I made several other critiques about the movie in regards to chess.
As the actress herself did splendidly.-Tyr

[SassyLady]

Anyone else tired of liberal Hollywood rewriting history?

Happens all the time and then teachers use the movie as a teaching tool about history. Or people watch the fictional "based on" and never research the true facts.

Hope she wins what she's asking for and the key awards more!

BTW. Hate media after experiencing their rewriting some of my history in the mid 80s. When I asked them to print the truth I was told the truth doesn't sell

[fj1200]

Prediction. She doesn't get anything.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Prediction. She doesn't get anything.

Your brevity is truly astounding.
I see that now you know my words on your habit verifies what a magnificent genius you are-- in the --- less is better-- is better ideology.
Which bears such great fruit in your case..
You can thank me later, as I know being brief may forbid you doing so after that long and deliciously insightful post you just made..
I am so very happy you know listen to me are a happy cmper knowing your true place in this dark and evil world...

check and mate.... :rofl1:---- Tyr

[SassyLady]

Prediction. She doesn't get anything.

Based on what?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Based on what?

Why, based upon the mighty fj's well hidden treasure trove of infinite knowledge of course..
Isn't it obvious?? -- :laugh:--Tyr

[fj1200]

Your brevity is truly astounding.

Dude, chill. It's just a prediction.


Based on what?

It'a tough thing to prove with challenging elements to meet especially in a piece of fiction which carries its own protections. I don't see it but I could be wrong.


She is suing Netflix for false light invasion of privacy and defamation.


The specific elements of the tort of false light vary considerably, even among those jurisdictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction) which do recognize this tort. Generally, these elements consist of the following:

A publication by the defendant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defendant) about the plaintiff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff);
made with actual malice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice) (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan) in "Defamation" cases);
which places the Plaintiff in a false light;
and that would be highly offensive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) (i.e., embarrassing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassment) to reasonable persons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person)).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light#cite_note-martin-2)




Civil defamation[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defamation&action=edit&section=68)]Although laws vary by state, in the United States a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant:[137] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_note-137)


made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and
caused damages to the plaintiff.

[SassyLady]

Dude, chill. It's just a prediction.



It'a tough thing to prove with challenging elements to meet especially in a piece of fiction which carries its own protections. I don't see it but I could be wrong.
Well, the complaint might not meet all the criteria but definitely 3 out of 4 points in both the false light invasion and civil defamation.

[fj1200]

Not to a "reasonable person." Just because she was offended doesn't mean a reasonable person would be. Not even taking into account that it's a work of fiction with free speech. Besides, if the AJC and the late Kathy Skruggs (https://deadline.com/2019/12/clint-eastwood-lawsuit-richard-jewell-movie-warner-bros-atlanta-journal-constitution-1202805069/) didn't go anywhere then neither will this.

[JakeStarkey]

I hope she makes some money off her complaint if she were defamed.

The movie was very entertaining.

[Gunny]

Not to a "reasonable person." Just because she was offended doesn't mean a reasonable person would be. Not even taking into account that it's a work of fiction with free speech. Besides, if the AJC and the late Kathy Skruggs (https://deadline.com/2019/12/clint-eastwood-lawsuit-richard-jewell-movie-warner-bros-atlanta-journal-constitution-1202805069/) didn't go anywhere then neither will this.I'm just curious. How can you take someone's name, likeness and life, call it a work of fiction, and get away with adding/subtracting/altering facts about them and NOT be held accountable?

I don't know anything about this chess person and its lawsuit other than ignoring the story about 3 straight days as it keeps shining brightly on the screen of what the media thinks I need to know.

Calling it a work of fiction appears to be an underhanded way around ethical responsibility.

[SassyLady]

Not to a "reasonable person." Just because she was offended doesn't mean a reasonable person would be. Not even taking into account that it's a work of fiction with free speech. Besides, if the AJC and the late Kathy Skruggs (https://deadline.com/2019/12/clint-eastwood-lawsuit-richard-jewell-movie-warner-bros-atlanta-journal-constitution-1202805069/) didn't go anywhere then neither will this.
You don't think reasonable people will find fault when the movie said she never competed against males? That's an outright lie that can be proven.

I think of myself as a reasonable person and it pisses me of that people get away with blatant lies about historical figures. Especially when they gaslight about women's achievements.

The movie might have been entertaining, however, based on a big lie.

[JakeStarkey]

I hope she makes some money off her complaint if she were defamed. The movie was very entertaining.

[fj1200]

I'm just curious. How can you take someone's name, likeness and life, call it a work of fiction, and get away with adding/subtracting/altering facts about them and NOT be held accountable?

I don't know anything about this chess person and its lawsuit other than ignoring the story about 3 straight days as it keeps shining brightly on the screen of what the media thinks I need to know.

Calling it a work of fiction appears to be an underhanded way around ethical responsibility.

Poetic license (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license)?


You don't think reasonable people will find fault when the movie said she never competed against males? That's an outright lie that can be proven.

I think of myself as a reasonable person and it pisses me of that people get away with blatant lies about historical figures. Especially when they gaslight about women's achievements.

The movie might have been entertaining, however, based on a big lie.

No. The only lie, according to the complaint, is probably two seconds long. Being able to sue and win for such infranctions would be a considerable burden on free speech advocates and authors. There should have to be an incredibly high bar for people to clear otherwise almost any perceived slight could bring threat of lawsuit.

[SassyLady]

Poetic license (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license)?



No. The only lie, according to the complaint, is probably two seconds long. Being able to sue and win for such infranctions would be a considerable burden on free speech advocates and authors. There should have to be an incredibly high bar for people to clear otherwise almost any perceived slight could bring threat of lawsuit.
Perhaps that would bring more honesty to the world.

I truly believe that the 2 second rule is why the MSM and politicians are so corrupt. They believe the public is ignorant enough they can blatantly lie because it's considered a minor infraction. But to the victim it is a major event. She knows the truth and Netflix created a falsehood about her accomplishments.

Fj ... would you just roll over and dismiss it if it was someone you loved being lied about in a movie being watched by millions?

[fj1200]

Perhaps that would bring more honesty to the world.

I truly believe that the 2 second rule is why the MSM and politicians are so corrupt. They believe the public is ignorant enough they can blatantly lie because it's considered a minor infraction. But to the victim it is a major event. She knows the truth and Netflix created a falsehood about her accomplishments.

Fj ... would you just roll over and dismiss it if it was someone you loved being lied about in a movie being watched by millions?

So, you're for infringing on freedom of speech just a little bit then? I believe this 2 second rule has nothing to do with any corruption by the MSM becasue they have a completely different level when it comes to slander and libel. Also see the Richard Jewell case.

And there's a difference between rolling over and demanding someone bend to my perceived slight. Laws shouldn't be made on opinions of emotion and our society should protect speech rights. Even if it sucks sometimes.

[SassyLady]

So, you're for infringing on freedom of speech just a little bit then? I believe this 2 second rule has nothing to do with any corruption by the MSM becasue they have a completely different level when it comes to slander and libel. Also see the Richard Jewell case.

And there's a difference between rolling over and demanding someone bend to my perceived slight. Laws shouldn't be made on opinions of emotion and our society should protect speech rights. Even if it sucks sometimes.

How can it be a perceived slight? Is not a "he said, she said" issue. It's a major point being made in a movie that Netflix is profiting from. Free speech should not be about changing history to make a movie more profitable.

[fj1200]

How can it be a perceived slight? Is not a "he said, she said" issue. It's a major point being made in a movie that Netflix is profiting from. Free speech should not be about changing history to make a movie more profitable.

I don't believe the profitability has anything to do with her complaint. They could have left it out completely, still be as fictional, and still be profitable to the same extent, and she still wouldn't have a legal recourse.

[Gunny]

So, you're for infringing on freedom of speech just a little bit then? I believe this 2 second rule has nothing to do with any corruption by the MSM becasue they have a completely different level when it comes to slander and libel. Also see the Richard Jewell case.

And there's a difference between rolling over and demanding someone bend to my perceived slight. Laws shouldn't be made on opinions of emotion and our society should protect speech rights. Even if it sucks sometimes.I hate having to caveat everything. While I don't personally care, when today's narrative is controlled by gender and race, how could an outright lie regarding gender NOT matter?

Provable in writing or not, "never competing against males" for a female is like the * in front of the strike season Super Bowl winner.

As an aside, I played Chess from the time I was 7 until maybe 20 years ago. Love the game. You couldn't pay me to watch a movie about it. Or even to watch someone else play it. ESPECIALLY if the gam comes with play by play and color commentary as other sports. "He hasn't moved in ten minutes folks, chin in the palm of his hand, studying the board. If I was him I'd ....":rolleyes: Not exactly a spectator sport :laugh:

[SassyLady]

I don't believe the profitability has anything to do with her complaint. They could have left it out completely, still be as fictional, and still be profitable to the same extent, and she still wouldn't have a legal recourse.
True.

However, they did include the lie to make a false fact that a woman (and specifically this woman) had not beat any men at chess at that point in history. They did it to diminish a master class female champion.

With all the wokeness going on I predict she'll prevail.

[Gunny]

True.

However, they did include the lie to make a false fact that a woman (and specifically this woman) had not beat any men at chess at that point in history. They did it to diminish a master class female champion.

With all the wokeness going on I predict she'll prevail.Why would Netflix do that? Netflix is already on MY boycott list for all its progressive wokeness BS. I would believe they did it because they're just that damned dumb before them doing it to purposefully diminish a woman. Then let it go as far as lawsuit? Doesn't sound very "woke" to me.

And where is "wokeville" on social media driving nefflix out of business? Only takes one mistake with that bunch.

This is what happens when I don't know what's going on, don't care and get involved anyway :halo9:

A lie's a lie and wrong is wrong. I hope Netflix goes broke over it.

[fj1200]

I hate having to caveat everything. While I don't personally care, when today's narrative is controlled by gender and race, how could an outright lie regarding gender NOT matter?

I'm not staking any future on this but it's a court case with a speech defense IMO and nothing about gender.


With all the wokeness going on I predict she'll prevail.

Not based on case law.


A lie's a lie and wrong is wrong. I hope Netflix goes broke over it.

They've spent far more in lawyers on this stuff to have any chance of losing a court case. This is not new to them.

[Abbey Marie]

Prediction. She doesn't get anything.

I agree. Is it not fiction?

[fj1200]

I agree. Is it not fiction?

As far as I know. I know an author and I was a bit surprised one day when she mentioned to our group how much of what she writes, fiction btw, is pored over by lawyers. One thing for sure, big companies; don't like to get sued if they can help it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I agree. Is it not fiction?

The movie is fiction but she is real (HER NAME NOT FICTION)and her record is real (NOT FICTION). They lied about her record--one must ask why.
And the answer is obvious, to benefit them and the story line--to make money.
Can she prove it harmed her. I dunno.
But with the new WOKENESS" -- she may prevail.... I hope she does... --TYR

[Abbey Marie]

The movie is fiction but she is real (HER NAME NOT FICTION)and her record is real (NOT FICTION). They lied about her record--one must ask why.
And the answer is obvious, to benefit them and the story line--to make money.
Can she prove it harmed her. I dunno.
But with the new WOKENESS" -- she may prevail.... I hope she does... --TYR

I don’t think the series used her name, did they? Or claimed to be a documentary? I’d need more info, but if it’s a fictional story that has a character who has similarities to this real person, I still don’t think she will win any suit for damages. I think she needs to suck it up and move on.

[SassyLady]

I don’t think the series used her name, did they? Or claimed to be a documentary? I’d need more info, but if it’s a fictional story that has a character who has similarities to this real person, I still don’t think she will win any suit for damages. I think she needs to suck it up and move on.
They used her name but lied about her.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don’t think the series used her name, did they? Or claimed to be a documentary? I’d need more info, but if it’s a fictional story that has a character who has similarities to this real person, I still don’t think she will win any suit for damages. I think she needs to suck it up and move on.

I hate it when somebody starts hitting me things I did not consider..
So stop it, nobody likes to get their bubble busted, my friend.
PLeeeeeeeeeeezzze let me pretend to be 100% right and just foolishly and blindly go on my way....;)
Hell well...It works so damn well for the dems/libs-- that I thought for once in my onery life that I'd try it out... :rofl1: --Tyr

[fj1200]

My confidence rating in my original prediction is moving higher.

[fj1200]

...

With the Court having declined to dismiss the case, stay tuned to see this match escalate. At the beginning of the month, Netflix appealed (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--21-cv-07408/Nona_Gaprindashvili_v._Netflix_Inc._et_al/39/) the district court’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit. Gaprindashvili may not be the protagonist of The Queen’s Gambit, but at least for now, her early strategy and pawn structure have placed Netflix in a bind.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6c713d60-ec71-4f9c-850d-7c051970d6a8

[SassyLady]

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6c713d60-ec71-4f9c-850d-7c051970d6a8
How's your confidence rating now?

[fj1200]

How's your confidence rating now?

Still pretty high.