[img:$uid]http://i.imgur.com/8vh1w.jpg[/img:$uid]

August 17, 2011

Link

When Notifi Records CEO Ira DeWitt sued former New Edition singer Johnny Gill last week for alleged defamation on Twitter, the executive became the latest test subject for how comments online will be treated by the courts.

According to the lawsuit, @RealJohnnyGill accused DeWitt of hiring another singer to finish vocals on his song and then creating a fake Twitter page to leak the unfinished single. Gill claimed his record deal gave him authority over which songs were released as singles.

Further, the singer is alleged to have attacked the reputation of DeWitt and her company by saying on Twitter that she was "deranged" and "f**king nuts," that Notifi was a fake company, and that she had a "hard on" for the song's producer.

The comments are claimed to be defamatory because they "charge DeWitt with criminal, improper and immoral conduct."

Does the lawsuit have legs? Let's hope so. Many of the issues involving defamation on Twitter still have yet to be fully guided and fleshed out by judges.

Earlier this year, we reported on a fashion designer's lawsuit against Courtney Love and noted that the trial was expected to explore such issues as whether the average Twitter user would interpret vicious tweets as facts or opinions, as well as how to calculate damages in such disputes.

Before it got to trial, Love paid $430,000 to settle, and other cases involving defamation on Twitter have similarly been resolved. For example, last March, a British politician paid nearly $5,000 to make a lawsuit alleging tweet-defamation against a rival go away.

Perhaps this will be the case that actually gets before a jury. If so, it'll be fascinating to watch how DeWitt makes the case that allegations of an improper leak -- another sensitive topic -- were damaging to her reputation.

According to the complaint, Gill's tweeting "injure(d) DeWitt in her trade and business by imputing to her a lack of integrity and professionalism that has a natural tendency to lessen her ability to conduct business in the music producing industry."

For his part, Gill says he sees this as a "freedom of speech" issue, telling TMZ that imposing more liability on things said in the Twitterverse would mean that "the courtrooms would be filled with a bunch of Twitter people complaining about things people say every day."

[Edited 9/6/11 7:16am]

Just say it face-to-face and handle it accordingly. What did people do with themselves before everything become so

all of this drama over an album that's not gonna sell alot of copies anyway

Johnny is such a queen.

This is much to do about nothing and the suggestion... "latest test subject for how comments online will be treated by the courts" The latter statement is over the top and a tad melodramatic. Two people spatting over whatever and words being thrown about.

Johnny Gill, meet Courtney Love.

You tool!

SoulAlive said:

all of this drama over an album that's not gonna sell alot of copies anyway

You just ran a sword through him with that comment.

@ JG using Twitter of all things to rant, should've took it out on the boss himself. Dumb ass.

SoulAlive said:

all of this drama over an album that's not gonna sell alot of copies anyway

That album wasn't gonna come out anyway.

Mong said:

Johnny is such a queen.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Identity said:

Sure it was. The first single didn't get any traction.

Jam & Lewis were on board to help produce the album.

Haha there's your problems right there...

Dude should be grateful that an indie label even bothered to sign him.

Identity said:

Dude should be grateful that an indie label even bothered to sign him.

People can't be grateful for shit can they?

Timmy84 said:

Identity said:

Dude should be grateful that an indie label even bothered to sign him.

People can't be grateful for shit can they?

Who's going to contact him with a record deal after this fiasco? Used correctly, Twitter can be an effective marketing communication tool. But once its used to publicly vent and retaliate against another party, someone will come out looking like a jackass.

Identity said:

SoulAlive said:

all of this drama over an album that's not gonna sell alot of copies anyway

You just ran a sword through him with that comment.

Identity said:

Timmy84 said:

People can't be grateful for shit can they?

Who's going to contact him with a record deal after this fiasco? Used correctly, Twitter can be an effective marketing communication tool. But once its used to publicly vent and retaliate against another party, someone will come out looking like a jackass.

Yep.

Mong said:

Johnny is such a queen.

I wonder was it his song "In The Mood". Because its fire. It gets a lot of radio play here in LA. I was rooting for him. Because he has had a hard time getting a record deal. I remember years ago they told him he was too old

. But could this be a publicity stunt?

By the way Usher is singing background on his new hit...

[Edited 8/17/11 21:10pm]

Highly doubtful. It's the work of a guy intent on sabotaging his flagging career.

Identity said:

Highly doubtful. It's the work of a guy intent on sabotaging his flagging career.

"Sabotaging"? Let me put it this way: I doubt there would be a Johnny Gill thread right now if he hadn't said this. And this is the first time I'm hearing about this new single and album... and I'm a big fan who follows him on Twitter.

(Almost) All publicity is good publicity

LOL This isn't the Johnny Gill I was thinking of.

Timmy84 said:

@ JG using Twitter of all things to rant, should've took it out on the boss himself. Dumb ass.

For real. What he did was a bitch move. I expect better from him.

I knew something was up- when he went on a small rant about the record label last Friday morning on Steve Harvey's show, when he performed at the Hoodie Awards.

I was wondering what he was talking about because they had to cut him off to end the show.

AlexdeParis said:

Identity said:

Highly doubtful. It's the work of a guy intent on sabotaging his flagging career.

"Sabotaging"? Let me put it this way: I doubt there would be a Johnny Gill thread right now if he hadn't said this. And this is the first time I'm hearing about this new single and album... and I'm a big fan who follows him on Twitter.

(Almost) All publicity is good publicity

There's a difference between 1991 publicity and 2011 publicity. If this occurred in 1991, people would buy his album because he was hot then. 2011 is like "Johnny who?" Plus it's an indie release so no one really KNEW lmao

^Yep I thought this was a has been country singer from the 80's. First I was like he still has a record contract and second was he has a twitter account?

lazycrockett said:

^Yep I thought this was a has been country singer from the 80's. First I was like he still has a record contract and second was he has a twitter account?

Lawsuit Against Johnny Gill Dropped

September 6, 2011

Johnny Gill and the exec at his label Ira DeWitt, who filed suit against him for making defamatory statements about her on Twitter, have apparently reached some sort of agreement and the case has been dropped, reports TMZ.

DeWitt, whom Gill called "f-----g nuts" and "deranged" on the public forum, sounds like she's over the whole situation completely.

"I'm very happy to put this dispute behind us and I'm confident that [Gill's] loyal fans will be thrilled with the final product," she said.

Gill took back his words on Twitter saying, "I'm elated to continue this journey that I've started with Ira and Notifi Records. Through conflict we found a resolution, and not to mention I've found my friend again."

Ira DeWitt, wife of St. Louis Cardinals owner Bill Dewitt and CEO of Johnny Gill's record label, sued the former New Edition singer for his harsh words on Twitter.

The controversy centered around the release of a leaked song that Gill claims was intentionally leaked by Mrs. DeWitt.

"I have every reason to believe ira from the record company put this song out might cry with unfinished vocal from me," Johnny tweeted. "That is not on my cd."

On August 13, two days after the lawsuit was filed, Johnny Gill made a statement about the lawsuit. Defending his comments he told a reporter that people shouldn't be responsible for what they say on Twitter. Otherwise, "the courtrooms would be full with a bunch of Twitter people complaining about things people say every day," he said. "It's freedom of speech."

http://www.bet.com/news/m...opped.html