Story behind CCF's prevention of viewing/selling Your Mommy Kills Animals

[Guest guest]

The CCF has prevented the film’s widespread release by

threatening Amazon and other distributors with

litigation if they sell the documentary on the animal

activist movement. Luckily, Tower.com currently sells

the DVD, so Joel and I snapped up a copy before it

goes extinct.

 

The film had extensive discussion of the SHAC-7 trial,

with significant interviews with several of the SHAC 7

defendants. The documentary didn’t talk about the food

industry, except when a few of the interviewees

mentioned it. Instead, it focused on SHAC-7, animal

testing, and the fur industry -– typical issues

related to ALF-style animal activism.

 

The film also had a section bashing PETA, focusing

mainly on the North Carolina animal euthanization

fiasco and on their reliance on movie stars as

spokespersons. The film had another section bashing

HSUS about their efforts to save animals during

Katrina (and their attendant efforts to fundraise

during the aftermath of Katrina). When it came to more

grassroots-focused animal activism, however, the film

was quite sympathetic, and even the ALF came off

pretty well, in my opinion.

 

The only anti-animal person interviewed in the film

was the Center for Consumer Freedom’s David Martosko.

He got a ton of screen time, so they certainly can’t

be complaining about a lack of CCF presence in the

film. The director doesn’t even try to make him look

stupid—his role as an anti-animal lobbyist effectively

discredits all his tsk-tsking about animal rights

“hypocrisy.”

 

Despite its rather obvious attempt to blackball PETA

and HSUS (who, like any large organization, are no

angels, don’t get me wrong, but the negative focus on

these two groups seemed a little forced in light of

the rest of the film, particularly the part about

HSUS), the documentary gave a fairly even-handed

portrayal of the animal activist movement in general.

 

While that even-handedness may be enough to convince

the CCF that the film should be suppressed, I was

curious about whether there was anything else behind

the CCF’s rather drastic actions.

 

That’s where the intrigue begins.

 

On October 19, 2007, Judge T.S. Ellis III in the

Eastern District of Virginia decided Berman v.

Johnson. In this case, Richard Berman, the head of

CCF, sued Curt Johnson, the director of Your Mommy

Kills Animals.

 

 

According to the facts of the case, in 2005, Johnson

and Maura Flynn, another movie producer, decided to

direct and produce two movies, one on smoking issues

and one on “PETA and the animal rights movement.”

Flynn would be primarily responsible for the smoking

movie, and Johnson would be responsible for the animal

rights film. (Flynn’s husband is a former employee of

Berman’s “public affairs firm,” Berman and Co.) In the

fall of 2005, Johnson went to D.C. to meet with Flynn

and Berman to discuss the possibility of Berman

investing in the PETA/animal rights film. Berman

“committed $300,000 to the production of YMKA, and

production on the film began.”

 

During the production of the two movies, Flynn and

Johnson helped each other with their movies, but at

some point in 2006, Johnson told Flynn not to travel

with the YMKA crew “because potential interview

subjects had become aware of Flynn’s connection

through her husband to Berman and Company and the CCF,

and her presence would make them less willing to

participate in YMKA.”

 

In the late spring and summer of 2006, Johnson

rejected most of Flynn’s “editorial suggestions” for

the animal rights film and “ultimately ceased all

communication with her.” Johnson then began “publicly

screening a substantially complete version of the film

and contacted various film festivals and distribution

companies regarding the general release of the film.”

 

The film apparently wasn’t what Berman or Flynn had

expected. “[T]he great majority of the film is not

directed to PETA, contrary to the treatment prepared

by Flynn and contrary to the understanding Berman

testified he had with Johnson.” Berman was mad that

the majority of the film was focused on the SHAC-7,

“particularly given Johnson’s portrayal of the SHAC-7

as champions of free speech.”

 

In his opinion, the judge had to decide Flynn’s

request to be declared joint author of YMKA and

Berman’s request that he be declared the sole promoter

of YMKA.

 

The judge granted Flynn’s request to be a joint author

“with all attendant rights and benefits,” since she

was, by agreement, supposed to be involved in the

production of the film, and Johnson cut off her

involvement. As a joint author, she can assign the

movie or grant non-exclusive licenses, and that she

can veto any effort by Johnson to grant an exclusive

license. She also gets money from every license

Johnson makes.

 

The judge didn’t grant Berman’s request to be the

exclusive promoter of YMKA. In an earlier jury trial

in this case, Berman had been awarded $360,000 for

breach of contract (since the YMKA that was actually

made was very different from the YMKA that they’d

agreed to produce). The judge found that the monetary

award had “made him whole” already, and if he got the

promotional rights as well, he would be doubly

compensated, which isn’t allowed.

 

If Berman had been granted exclusive promotional

rights, he probably would have just buried the movie

by not having it shown at theaters or sold as a DVD.

Since he didn’t get exclusive promotional rights, he’s

trying to bury the movie in another way — by

threatening to sue distributors.

 

I don’t know what legal theories Berman has behind the

threats. If I had to guess, he might be saying that

the movie was produced with stolen money, or that it

was made fraudulently, or that it advocates terrorism

— none of which seems like a particularly strong claim

to me.

 

This interesting story also sheds some light on the

odd anti-PETA and anti-HSUS segments of the movie —

perhaps Johnson was trying to incorporate some of

Berman’s and Flynn’s demands into the film so that

they wouldn’t sue him. And it also possibly explains

why PETA and HSUS refused to be interviewed for the

film — they might have been the “potential interview

subjects” who had gotten wind of Berman’s involvement

with the film. The documentary (and PETA and HSUS)

would have benefited from an interview with PETA and

HSUS spokespersons, but, if the Berman connection is

the reason why they reneged on their original

agreement to be interviewed, that’s an understandable

reaction. And it may explain the weird title, taken

from one of PETA’s more off-putting publications that

the CCF loves to talk about — perhaps the title was

set before Johnson had his apparent change of heart.

 

So I think that’s the story behind Your Mommy Kills

Animals — it started life as a PETA hit piece, but it

grew up to be an eloquent defender of free speech and

animal