Netflix has decided to settle case filed by a Georgian chess master whom alleged that she ended up being defamed in an episode of “The Queen’s Gambit.”
Nona Gaprindashvili argued that each and every achievements had been disparaged whenever a chess announcer into the Netflix show wrongly reported that she had “never faced guys.” In reality, Gaprindashvili had faced 59 male rivals by 1968, the season when the show ended up being set.
Netflix had attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed, claiming that the show’s creators had license that is broad the First Amendment. But in January a judge that is federal that argument, keeping that fictional works aren’t resistant from arguments when they defame genuine people.
Netflix appealed the ruling towards the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but on the case was dismissed.
“The tuesday parties are pleased that the matter has been resolved,” said attorney Alexander Rufus-Isaacs, who represented Gaprindashvili.
Charlie Gray / Netflix
“The Queen’s Gambit” portrays Beth Harmon, a fictional American who becomes an chess champion that is international. Into the episode that is final Harmon defeats a male competitor at a tournament in Moscow. An announcer explains that her opponent underestimated her. “The only thing that is unusual her, actually, is her intercourse. And also that isn’t unique in Russia. There is Nona Gaprindashvili, but she actually is the world that is female and she has never faced men. ”
Gaprindashvili, now 81, argued that the reference was “grossly sexist and belittling.”
Netflix argued that the reference was intended to recognize Gaprindashvili, not disparage her. The series employed two chess experts in an effort to get the details correct.The streamer also relied on a 2018 ruling in the California Court of Appeals
Irakli Gedenidze / Reuters via Alamy
In the Gaprindashvili instance, nevertheless, US District Judge Virginia Phillips unearthed that does not always mean that creators have actually an right that is unfettered defame people.
“Netflix does not cite, and the Court is not aware, of any cases defamation that is precluding for the depiction of genuine people in otherwise fictional works,” the judge penned. “The proven fact that the Series ended up being a work that is fictional not insulate Netflix from liability for defense if all the elements of defamation are otherwise present.”
The settlement means that the Circuit that is 9th will get to weigh in — at least for the moment — on where in fact the line is drawn whenever genuine folks are portrayed in fictional works.(*)