Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Magazine Issues

Aired November 07, 2003 - 11:11   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Joining us yet again to talk about the thorny legal battle between Rosie and the publishers is "Celebrity Justice" executive producer Harvey Levin. The defense didn't waste any time here, they went right to their star witness, and that is Rosie O'Donnell.
HARVEY LEVIN, EXEC. PROD., "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": She's the case, I mean, she is everything, and certainly, cross-examination here, to me, is going to be the high point of the case. It's really the showdown between these two cultures. We talked about it yesterday. Rosie O'Donnell, who is an out-there businesswoman, tough as nails, and a magazine publisher, who has very different sensibilities, and we're going to hear about that on the stand today.

KAGAN: And Rosie didn't waste any time telling a few tales out of school, saying the publisher was kind of slamming Martha and Oprah.

LEVIN: If this were a jury, that would be dangerous ground to tread on, especially Oprah. She is such a beloved person in America.

But yes, I mean, it's an odd strategy. Martha, it's almost like she's too easy a target, and Oprah, you just don't go there, especially if it were a jury. It's not. It's a judge. But Rosie certainly counted back and said, hey, if you think Martha and Oprah are -- rhymes with witch, I'm in good company. How did you like the way I handled that?

KAGAN: That's very professional. I think you make an interesting point here about it being a judge and not a jury. How might that play out in terms of how this might finally be decided?

LEVIN: Well, you know, judges stick to the law more than juries. Judges understand the separation in a case between your emotions and the law, and when you get jury instructions, if you're sitting on a jury, you're supposed to be devoid of those emotions, but it's really hard to do when you're not schooled in the law, when you don't know, hey, I have to make sure that I'm following precisely what the judge said. Jurors bend those rules from time to time if they really feel sympathy. Judges tend not to deal with the sympathy factor as much.

KAGAN: As much attention as this might be getting because of the celebrity involved, it might come down to some basic business principles. It seems like Rosie's attorneys are talking about this mark of $4.2 million, that there was something built into the contract that if they could prove that it was losing that much money, then either side was allowed to walk away. LEVIN: Right, and you know, that's going to be one of the arguments. But, Daryn, I have to tell you, I think this is going to come down to whether the conditions there were tolerable for Rosie O'Donnell and whether they were tolerable for the magazine. I think this is going to come down to that, that who made whose life so miserable that things fell apart, and I really think that, legally, that's going to ultimately become the issue.

KAGAN: And you and I were talking about the issue why the two didn't settle out of court. I read this morning, they did come to terms, but the sticking point for Rosie, she didn't want to sign a confidentiality agreement. She wants to talk be able to about how she believes she was wronged.

LEVIN: It makes so much sense and so consistent with what we've seen in this case. She has held court at court every single day, and she has been in front of the cameras. She has been talking about the case very openly, and I think she really wants that kind of personal vindication here, and I think part of it is the magazine was called "Rosie." This isn't just an anonymous business venture; this is her being that's on trial right now, and I think she needs to air that and make her position clear.

KAGAN: Before we let you go, I want to ask you about a different magazine issue, and this involves two magazines in Britain and Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas and their wedding photos and who was supposed to get paid how much for the wedding photos.

LEVIN: Well, ultimately what happened here, was "OK" magazine had a deal with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas that they would publish the wedding pictures. "Hello" magazine got in on it and actually got some pictures on their own. "OK" has already won a judgment against "Hello." So had Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas. And the judge said, look, we believe that your commercial rights here have been violated. They had also sued for invasion of privacy, and the judge said we're not going to give you anything for that.

But today, the judge said I'm going to give you basically my conversion from pounds to dollars, Daryn, I'm sorry about, but I believe it's around $22,000. They were asking for a lot more.

But I don't think money is the issue here. Bottom line, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas stood up for what they believed was right. They felt their rights were violated. And to them, what does it matter if it's $22,000 or $50,000? They're filthy rich.

KAGAN: These are the people who were accepting wedding presents for their child's trust fund or something like that, I mean, or their child's foundation.

LEVIN: They don't need the money. They wanted to make a point. It's a different world. But you know what, they made their point. and I think that's what motivated them in this case.

KAGAN: OK, whatever does it for them, that wacky world of celebrity that you cover for a business.

Harvey, thank you. Have a great weekend.

LEVIN: You, too, Daryn.

KAGAN: We'll see you soon.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired November 7, 2003 - 11:11   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Joining us yet again to talk about the thorny legal battle between Rosie and the publishers is "Celebrity Justice" executive producer Harvey Levin. The defense didn't waste any time here, they went right to their star witness, and that is Rosie O'Donnell.
HARVEY LEVIN, EXEC. PROD., "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": She's the case, I mean, she is everything, and certainly, cross-examination here, to me, is going to be the high point of the case. It's really the showdown between these two cultures. We talked about it yesterday. Rosie O'Donnell, who is an out-there businesswoman, tough as nails, and a magazine publisher, who has very different sensibilities, and we're going to hear about that on the stand today.

KAGAN: And Rosie didn't waste any time telling a few tales out of school, saying the publisher was kind of slamming Martha and Oprah.

LEVIN: If this were a jury, that would be dangerous ground to tread on, especially Oprah. She is such a beloved person in America.

But yes, I mean, it's an odd strategy. Martha, it's almost like she's too easy a target, and Oprah, you just don't go there, especially if it were a jury. It's not. It's a judge. But Rosie certainly counted back and said, hey, if you think Martha and Oprah are -- rhymes with witch, I'm in good company. How did you like the way I handled that?

KAGAN: That's very professional. I think you make an interesting point here about it being a judge and not a jury. How might that play out in terms of how this might finally be decided?

LEVIN: Well, you know, judges stick to the law more than juries. Judges understand the separation in a case between your emotions and the law, and when you get jury instructions, if you're sitting on a jury, you're supposed to be devoid of those emotions, but it's really hard to do when you're not schooled in the law, when you don't know, hey, I have to make sure that I'm following precisely what the judge said. Jurors bend those rules from time to time if they really feel sympathy. Judges tend not to deal with the sympathy factor as much.

KAGAN: As much attention as this might be getting because of the celebrity involved, it might come down to some basic business principles. It seems like Rosie's attorneys are talking about this mark of $4.2 million, that there was something built into the contract that if they could prove that it was losing that much money, then either side was allowed to walk away. LEVIN: Right, and you know, that's going to be one of the arguments. But, Daryn, I have to tell you, I think this is going to come down to whether the conditions there were tolerable for Rosie O'Donnell and whether they were tolerable for the magazine. I think this is going to come down to that, that who made whose life so miserable that things fell apart, and I really think that, legally, that's going to ultimately become the issue.

KAGAN: And you and I were talking about the issue why the two didn't settle out of court. I read this morning, they did come to terms, but the sticking point for Rosie, she didn't want to sign a confidentiality agreement. She wants to talk be able to about how she believes she was wronged.

LEVIN: It makes so much sense and so consistent with what we've seen in this case. She has held court at court every single day, and she has been in front of the cameras. She has been talking about the case very openly, and I think she really wants that kind of personal vindication here, and I think part of it is the magazine was called "Rosie." This isn't just an anonymous business venture; this is her being that's on trial right now, and I think she needs to air that and make her position clear.

KAGAN: Before we let you go, I want to ask you about a different magazine issue, and this involves two magazines in Britain and Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas and their wedding photos and who was supposed to get paid how much for the wedding photos.

LEVIN: Well, ultimately what happened here, was "OK" magazine had a deal with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas that they would publish the wedding pictures. "Hello" magazine got in on it and actually got some pictures on their own. "OK" has already won a judgment against "Hello." So had Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas. And the judge said, look, we believe that your commercial rights here have been violated. They had also sued for invasion of privacy, and the judge said we're not going to give you anything for that.

But today, the judge said I'm going to give you basically my conversion from pounds to dollars, Daryn, I'm sorry about, but I believe it's around $22,000. They were asking for a lot more.

But I don't think money is the issue here. Bottom line, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas stood up for what they believed was right. They felt their rights were violated. And to them, what does it matter if it's $22,000 or $50,000? They're filthy rich.

KAGAN: These are the people who were accepting wedding presents for their child's trust fund or something like that, I mean, or their child's foundation.

LEVIN: They don't need the money. They wanted to make a point. It's a different world. But you know what, they made their point. and I think that's what motivated them in this case.

KAGAN: OK, whatever does it for them, that wacky world of celebrity that you cover for a business.

Harvey, thank you. Have a great weekend.

LEVIN: You, too, Daryn.

KAGAN: We'll see you soon.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com