Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Tommy Fleming awarded €150k in damages

  • 26-07-2017 08:32PM
    #1
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭


    Tommy Fleming has been awarded €150k in damages after a TV station broadcast his Voice of Hope DVD which he sent them.

    http://jrnl.ie/3515284

    Now I know the Journal doesn't really do "in depth" reporting but I can't really see the damage that's been identified.

    Perish the thought that other broadcasters would now refrain from playing his music after this.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    I want damages from Tommy Fleming for the trauma of accidently hearing one of his songs.


  • #3
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    So he sent them his DVD and then sued them when they aired it? That makes sense.


  • #4
    Rumpy Pumpy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭Rumpy Pumpy


    He seems like a right Creeping Jesus.


  • #5
    mzungu
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,311 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    anna080 wrote: »
    So he sent them his DVD and then sued them when they aired it? That makes sense.

    Must have been meant as a gift only. I always thought Irish artists would welcome any kind of exposure. But there you have it.


  • #6
    mikeybrennan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    I don't begrudge him the money as long as he doesn't
    release any more songs


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Jim Bob Scratcher
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,231 ✭✭✭Jim Bob Scratcher


    That will keep him topped up with fake tan for a few more years so


  • #8
    alchemist33
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    Bizarre. Supposedly being shown on this minor tv channel damaged his chances of being on a bigger tv channel. Yet he sent them a dvd himself, not thinking it beneath him then? Sounds like proper gob****ery on his part.


  • #9
    CFlat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭CFlat


    They'll hardly see any of the money, the company they're suing is in liquidation. It's a bizarre case. How could you totally prove that a broadcast would damage your career? He's been on TV every Christmas for the last 20 years, well it seems that long to me.


  • #10
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    For all he'll get it might as well have been a million.

    But it was the height of cheek by a tv company to just ignore his intellectual property rights.


  • #11
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    CFlat wrote: »
    They'll hardly see any of the money, the company they're suing is in liquidation. It's a bizarre case. How could you totally prove that a broadcast would damage your career? He's been on TV every Christmas for the last 20 years, well it seems that long to me.

    Not "totally prove", only establish that it's more likely than not...civil case.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Hopefully they learn from their mistakes and never play him again.


  • #13
    Erik Shin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭Erik Shin


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    For all he'll get it might as well have been a million.

    But it was the height of cheek by a tv company to just ignore his intellectual property rights.

    Tommy Flemming and intellect in the same sentence.....never thought I'd see that to be truthful


  • #14
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,310 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    Hopefully they learn from their mistakes and never play him again.
    Hopefully he'll have shot himself in the foot, and no-one ever plays his music again!


  • #15
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    the_syco wrote: »
    Hopefully he'll have shot himself in the foot, and no-one ever plays his music again!

    There was some Irish band, they sued to get a hat back...never heard of again.


  • #16
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,038 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    wasn't he the one who bit the head off a live chicken during one of his shows?


  • #17
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,669 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    We should send him to the US military a more sadistic form of torture than waterbording = listening to his melancholy whining.


  • #18
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    For all he'll get it might as well have been a million.

    But it was the height of cheek by a tv company to just ignore his intellectual property rights.

    Would intellectual property rights not be addressed by royalties payable as opposed to a claim for damages?


  • #19
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    wasn't he the one who bit the head off a live chicken during one of his shows?

    No he choked his chicken during one of his live shows....


  • #20
    bodhrandude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,327 ✭✭✭✭bodhrandude


    Is that the token Irish Channel you got on Sky, always some dreadful country on that.

    If you want to get into it, you got to get out of it. (Hawkwind 1982)



  • #21
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,242 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It's kinda hard to get angry about this judgment; firstly because I've never heard of Tommy Fleming; secondly, because it's probably a token award that will never materialise, and if Irish TV is like any other enterprise of that scale, probably owes a lot more to the banks and to Revenue that we will pay for.

    Thirdly, if you read the article, it does seem like the Court (which has heard all the evidence, after all) has accepted that there was a material loss to Fleming which probably can't (or won't be) distilled into one article that attempts to attract clicks.

    A lot of people want to be outraged by the news, as always. It doesn't shift newspapers (or clicks, even) to print a story that makes you go, "yeah, that's fair enough, I'm pretty neutral about that".


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,423 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Don't really see the problem with the ruling: they didn't have permission to broadcast the DVD, but did it anyway. Seems like he was entitled to some redress.


  • #23
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,501 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    CFlat wrote: »
    They'll hardly see any of the money, the company they're suing is in liquidation. It's a bizarre case. How could you totally prove that a broadcast would damage your career? He's been on TV every Christmas for the last 20 years, well it seems that long to me.

    Could Irish TV not claim that airing the DVD, which he pretty much forced them to do (humour me) resulted in irreparable damage to their image and, ultimately, their liquidation?


  • #24
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    How did they come up with 150k? Did they work out that to be the loss of sales as a result of people seeing the concert on TV and subsequently not buying it? The premise is sound enough as after seeing that for free who in their right mind would want to buy it.
    How many people even saw the original broadcast? Who the hell are Irish TV? How is that a serious setback? What did he expect them to do with the DVD? A two-bit singer getting in a snot about ' small channel with low ratings'. Shlow down there Tommy. Delusions of fcuking granduer.


  • #25
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Arghus wrote: »
    Don't really see the problem with the ruling: they didn't have permission to broadcast the DVD, but did it anyway. Seems like he was entitled to some redress.

    He was chancing his arm sending it to them then if he didn't want them to broadcast it.

    He was obviously looking for promotion of some sort from the station, and must have thought it was worth sending them the DVD but later decided he didn't like the promotion he got.

    Cake and eat comes to mind .


  • #26
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    The Judge is clearly a fan which would make you wonder if he is of sound enough mind to be presiding over court cases in the first place.
    "a talented artist" There must have been guffaws in the court room when that was read out. I'd say more than a few were threatened with contempt of court. Not least of all Tommy himself.


  • #27
    darkdubh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,628 ✭✭✭darkdubh


    I'd say his biggest fans are middle aged women who believe in guardian angels and psychics.


  • #28
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    gramar wrote: »
    The Judge is clearly a fan which would make you wonder if he is of sound enough mind to be presiding over court cases in the first place.
    "a talented artist" There must have been guffaws in the court room when that was read out. I'd say more than a few were threatened with contempt of court. Not least of all Tommy himself.

    Dear Jesus. The things people just pluck out of thin air!

    This is how Court works. The case was uncontested. So the only evidence submitted about his ability would have been unchallenged. A Judge can only go on the evidence tendered, so if it's all one way, he must go that way.

    Where are you getting these "Judge may not be of sound mind" and "people threatened with contempt of Court" ideas? Did you completely make that up?


  • #29
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dense wrote: »
    He was chancing his arm sending it to them then if he didn't want them to broadcast it.

    He was obviously looking for promotion of some sort from the station, and must have thought it was worth sending them the DVD but later decided he didn't like the promotion he got.

    Cake and eat comes to mind .

    U2 will give interviews and tickets to someone like Dave Fanning all the time. But if RTE broadcast their latest video without permission or licence, they'd be more annoyed than when they wanted their hat back.


  • #30
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Dear Jesus. The things people just pluck out of thin air!

    This is how Court works. The case was uncontested. So the only evidence submitted about his ability would have been unchallenged. A Judge can only go on the evidence tendered, so if it's all one way, he must go that way.

    Where are you getting these "Judge may not be of sound mind" and "people threatened with contempt of Court" ideas? Did you completely make that up?

    It's only a bit of fun Conor!


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    mikeybrennan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 869 ✭✭✭mikeybrennan


    Have any of the viewers been compensated yet?


Advertisement
Advertisement