26 June 2026
DEFAMATION (US): Tyra Banks sues Netflix over allegedly defamatory edit
Former supermodel Tyra Banks is suing Netflix (and others) in the Federal Court of California in respect of its three-part docuseries ‘Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model’.
The series, released in February 2026, examines the legacy of the genre-defining TV modelling competition and features interviews with producer Ken Mok, judges (including Banks) and former ANTM contestants. ANTM first premiered in 2003 in the early years of reality TV but went on to become a cultural phenomenon, with its most popular episodes clocking a reported 100 million global viewers.
During the pandemic, historical clips from ANTM began circulating online, highlighting Banks’ controversial treatment of the contestants. In one video, Banks is seen giving model Tiffany Richardson a dressing down after evicting her from the contest, and shouting “I was rooting for you. We were all rooting for you! How dare you!”.
Banks appeared to acknowledge the issues with her treatment of some of the contestants in a (now deleted) tweet "Been seeing the posts about the insensitivity of some past ANTM moments and I agree with you. Looking back, those were some really off choices. Appreciate your honest feedback and am sending so much love and virtual hugs."
Banks’ behaviour on ANTM is once again under the microscope following the release of the Netflix documentary.
In her lawsuit, Banks claims that Netflix edited her three-and-a-half-hour interview down to sixteen minutes and, in doing so, stripped it of context and created a “false and defamatory narrative”. She claims that moments in which she took accountability for the show’s toxic environment were omitted from the interview.
According to the claim, because of “selective editing, deliberate omission, and surgical manipulation of continuous footage”, the show presented a narrative that Banks “knowingly allowed a contestant to be sexually assaulted on her show, exploited that contestant’s trauma for ratings, and then could not even remember it when asked.”
Banks has requested that her claim is tried by a jury. She seeks uncapped damages for lost business opportunities, income, other loss, severe reputational harm and significant mental anguish - and claims, among other things, that online ratings of her Australian ice cream business have fallen by more than 20% since the show aired and that viewers have left “retaliatory reviews”. Banks also seeks an injunction preventing the use of her image.
Netflix did not comment on the claim when approached by Deadline magazine.
To win her claim, Banks must overcome two significant hurdles. The first relates to the contract with Netflix in which she apparently signed away her right to sue (and Netflix agreed not to edit Banks in a defamatory manner or change the meaning of her statements). Second, given the case is being brought in the United States, because she is a public figure, not only must she prove that the allegedly defamatory imputations are false, she must also prove that the producers acted with “actual malice” in the way in which the show was edited - in other words, she must show that they published the statement knowing it was untrue, or with reckless disregard for the same. This contrasts with claims in England and Wales, where truth is generally a defence that must be established by the defendant i.e. the party accused of publishing the libel.
Whatever the outcome, the proceedings are likely to focus attention on the extent to which documentary makers can rely on editorial discretion when selecting interview footage, particularly where contributors allege that editing has materially altered the meaning of what they said. The case therefore has the potential to be of wider interest to documentary producers and broadcasters beyond the immediate dispute.
Lawyers at ABBAS have extensive experience advising production companies, broadcasters and streamers on editorial legal and regulatory risk. We regularly review and sign off programmes for E&O insurance purposes, advising on defamation, privacy, copyright, compliance and other legal and editorial issues. Please do get in touch if you would like to discuss how we can assist.
COPYRIGHT: European court’s decision offers guidance on the UK’s fair dealing exception for pastiche
UK copyright law allows limited use of copyright works for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche, provided the use amounts to “fair dealing”. This exception is found in section 30A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and was introduced in 2014 to implement EU copyright law.
However, "pastiche" is not defined in either UK or EU legislation. While the CJEU previously clarified the meaning of "parody" in Deckmyn v Vandersteen (2014), there had been little judicial guidance on what constitutes a "pastiche".
That is why the CJEU's Grand Chamber decision in Pelham II is significant. Although CJEU decisions are no longer binding on UK courts, the case is likely to be persuasive because the UK exception was originally introduced to implement the equivalent EU provision.
The long-running Pelham dispute concerns the use of an approximately two-second rhythmic sequence from Kraftwerk’s recording Metall auf Metall in the song Nur mir. The German court asked whether this kind of sampling could fall within the pastiche exception.
The CJEU held that a work may qualify as pastiche where it: evokes one or more existing works; is noticeably different from them; and uses characteristic protected elements of those works in a way that creates an objectively recognisable artistic or creative “dialogue” with them. That dialogue might take the form of stylistic imitation, tribute, humour or criticism.
The Court also made clear that the pastiche exception is not a free pass to copy copyrighted works. To qualify, the new work must borrow characteristic elements of the original as part of an artistic or creative dialogue. At the same time, the Court recognised that some copying of protected material must be permitted, otherwise the exception would have little practical value.
Importantly, the Court said it is not necessary to prove that the user subjectively intended to create a pastiche. Instead, what matters is whether a person familiar with the original work would objectively recognise the new work as a pastiche. The Court also made clear that concealed imitation or plagiarism will not qualify: the engagement with the original work must be overt and recognisable.
In relation to sampling, the Court emphasised the need to balance artistic freedom with copyright protection. Sampling may, in principle, fall within the pastiche exception, but only where the resulting work satisfies the requirements set out in the judgment. The case will now return to the German courts for final determination.
For UK creators, the decision provides valuable guidance on the scope of the pastiche exception. In simple terms, while a parody generally comments on an existing work through humour or mockery, a pastiche can creatively engage with, imitate or pay tribute to an existing work without needing to be funny. However, the judgment also makes clear that the exception is not a licence to copy. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair dealing will continue to depend on the facts of each case.
Lawyers at ABBAS advise on all aspects of copyright law affecting content producers, from fair dealing, clearance and licensing to infringement disputes and risk management. We regularly advise clients on the use of third-party copyright material and have extensive experience assessing whether content falls within the UK's fair dealing exceptions. Nigel Abbas was one of the principal authors of Channel 4's original Fair Dealing Guidelines and subsequently updated them following the introduction of the quotation, parody, caricature and pastiche exceptions into UK copyright law. Please do get in touch if you would like to discuss any copyright issue affecting your production or business.
BUSINESS AFFAIRS: Cinemas, streaming, and the theatrical window - The Window Strikes Back
Early 2026 saw lively debate over the future of the so called “exclusive theatrical window” – the period during which film studios grant cinemas first-run rights before films move to home viewing.
Reports that Netflix might acquire Warner Bros, coupled with earlier comments from Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos questioning the long-term relevance of cinemas, prompted concern that a Netflix-owned Warner Bros might reduce cinema exclusivity to just 17 days. When Netflix withdrew from the acquisition, those fears largely subsided.
In the US the duration of the theatrical window is not fixed by law but negotiated between studios and cinema chains. US antitrust rules prohibit coordination, but long-standing relationships have created industry norms affording a degree of commercial certainty.
Before COVID-19, cinema exclusivity typically lasted 75–90 days, followed by digital download, then subscription streaming, and then scheduled broadcasting, allowing cinemas to run a business and studios to maximise marketing impact and long-tail revenues.
The pandemic disrupted this model. In 2020 Universal’s Trolls World Tour went straight to streaming, with Universal later agreeing to a 17-day agreement with AMC cinemas. Warner Bros released its entire 2021 slate simultaneously in cinemas and on HBO Max.
Backlash from cinemas and talent, and the re-opening of cinemas post pandemic saw a move away from simultaneous theatrical and streaming releases and by 2022 some studios were returning to a roughly 45-day window.
Momentum has continued to favour cinema. In 2025 Universal adopted a five-week window; also in 2025 Apple’s F1 film enjoyed a five-month exclusive run. In 2026 Paramount reaffirmed a commitment to a 45-day window at CinemaCon 2026 and Amazon/MGM gave Project Hail Mary a 53-day cinema exclusivity before digital purchase with streaming following. Even Netflix, while still prioritising streaming, has shown flexibility with limited theatrical releases to support awards campaigns and audience buzz.
The rationale seems clear. Strong theatrical performance not only drives box office revenue but also enhances a film’s “event” status, boosting downstream value across different platforms. Evidence suggests revenues decline sharply when theatrical windows fall below 45 days. Filmmakers also continue to defend cinema-first releases, with Christopher Nolan insisting on extended runs and Scarlett Johansson taking legal action to protect theatrical commitments.
So, it appears that despite pandemics, technological change and the lure of the sofa, human hunger for communal experience survives. Like other shared cultural rituals, cinema continues to attract audiences. Predictions of its decline have been made many times before. For now at least, they appear to have been exaggerated.
Lawyers at ABBAS advise on all aspects of business affairs for content producers, from development, financing and commissioning through to production, distribution and exploitation. We regularly negotiate and draft agreements for scripted and non-scripted content, including underlying rights, option and acquisition agreements, talent agreements, format licences, commissioning agreements and distribution arrangements. Please do get in touch if you would like to discuss how we can assist with your next production or commercial deal.
COPYRIGHT (US): Labels seek to overturn “headscratching” copyright ruling in the US Supreme Court
In January, songwriter Cyril Vetter won what has been described as a "game-changing" ruling when the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that artists can use the US copyright "termination" regime to reclaim not only US copyright in their songs, but also overseas rights.
Under US copyright law, authors who assign their copyright can, in certain circumstances, terminate that assignment after a prescribed period and reclaim ownership of their rights.
Until now, it had been widely understood that this applied only to US copyrights, with overseas rights remaining with record labels, publishers and other rights holders. The UK has no equivalent termination right.
In June, major music companies, including Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and BMG, petitioned the US Supreme Court to overturn what they described as a "headscratching" and "startling" decision. They argue that the ruling overturns 50 years of established industry practice and could affect agreements worth billions of dollars, particularly given the value of international streaming revenues.
The labels contend that the Court of Appeals misinterpreted an important provision of the US Copyright Act 1976 (section 304(c)(6)(E)), which they say makes clear that termination should not affect rights arising under foreign copyright laws.
The US Supreme Court hears only a small proportion of the cases brought before it, so it remains to be seen whether it will agree to hear the appeal. Whatever the outcome, the Fifth Circuit's decision has created significant uncertainty for music labels, publishers and investors with international copyright portfolios. zoom-in will continue to monitor this case and report on significant developments.
Abbas Media Law is a boutique law firm, specialising in advice to independent production companies and broadcasters. We are true experts in our field: all lawyers and advisors have in the past worked either in-house for broadcasters and/or production companies.
Accordingly, we fully understand production and the needs of our clients. We offer expert advice and representation on all programme content related matters (legal and regulatory), all aspects of business affairs, as well as complaints-handling and litigation. Visit www.abbasmedialaw.com or contact us directly at info@abbasmedialaw.com.