Possibly. Or if they show photos of him without his permisson I guess he could sue for using his image and likeneness without having any rights to do so...in addition to defamation.
I was wondering if the Estate could sue Michael Jacobshagen for fraud and forgery and using MJ's image and signature for profit? Pretty sure MJ's name and the business around his name have been trademarked and the Estate holds the rights for all merchandice. So if the criminal police in Germany has proved that what Jacobshagen had been selling was forged, and the German television has on film where Jacobshagen is claiming that MJ "wrote those in front of me" and there is that Swiss fan Käppeli and that other fan who bought stuff from Jacobshagen as witnesses....it should be a slam dunk case. And if Jacobshagen is now doing the rounds in the media showing Dimond and the Australian press forged letters and a book with a forged writing to make it look like it was Michael's then add a conspiracy charge to that also. Can anyone find out where that footage of Dimond with that book that they showed during the clip in Australian TV, is from? If anyone has the footage please post. Because this is like Dimond and Gutierrez all over again and the Estate should sue Dimond. And since this is her second time around, they can show it's her intention to conspire to do harm. Maybe the first time around she got off the hook by claiming "she didn't know Gutierrez wasn't reliable and didn't have any video"...but this time she should have known better and yet, she still failed to check who she was dealing with. Or worse, if she knew that Jacobshagen is shady and lying then she is doing all of thsi with intention and malice. And what makes it worse for Dimond is that she was around through the whole trial and practically attached to the hip (literally...:kissing::kiss
with Sneddon, and closely following the trial...she should know about everything that was or was not found and where it was found in MJ's house. So any books she tries to bring out now as some "shocking new evidence"...she should know better. If not defamation...I am sure there are some conspiracy laws or some kind of media laws that can be used to hold her responsible. If not for nothing else then conspiracy to use forged material for financial gain. And since Michael Jackson is trademarked (pretty sure of it), they are using his name for profit illegally by using material that is wrongly being sold as Michael Jackson's. Just an idea. I hope someone with more experience in law can come up with the details?
