I want to ask questions about how to draft a memo about media copyright and which right it belongs to as well as which rules should be applied in that case. (It is better to use some cases as some referrence.)

Imaging you are an associate in a small boutique law firm - your firm specializes in defending defamation cases brought against publishers and authors. Draft a memo to the Senior Partner ask you to: The client, Peter Michaels, is a former network news correspondent. He retired about 10 years ago and since that time, has been living a great life -- retired to Arizona, playing golf, getting hip replacement surgery, and writing novels. Turns out he has some real talent. Some of his books are very weird and outlandish (one involves the end of the world by insect attack!), but most are crime-based. His newest book -- "Harvest Murder!" -- is very scary and is loosely based on a real crime that he covered when he was a reporter. In sum, the book is about the murder of college student, Betsy Boom. Michaels' news coverage 30 plus years ago laid out how Betsy was robbed by a group of roving juveniles who accosted her as she was getting into her car late one night. When her body was found the next morning, her purse and valuables were gone and her throat was cut. Four teenagers were arrested when they were seen acting suspiciously early the next morning, spending money extravagantly and flashing an expensive woman's wristwatch blocks from the crime scene. After being interrogated nonstop for 96 hours, they all signed confessions; two of the teenagers, brothers, were functionally illiterate and signed what they thought was a confession to robbery; in truth, they confessed to Betsy's murder. The other two appeared to know what they were doing and signed willingly. None had lawyers but were assigned public defenders who tried to get the confessions tossed and lost. The four were sentenced to 75 years in prison. After spending 10 years in the State Prison, the four were contacted by a group of law students, looking to unravel unjust convictions. After working for two years evaluating the crime, the investigation and the prosecution, the students concluded the confessions were coerced and with their law school clinic staff, got the four new trials. Halfway through the new trials, the State's Attorney's Office decided to drop the cases and agreed to pay the four a total of $50,000,000 to buy a release of all claims.

Michaels covered all of this at the time and as the years wound on, he remained convinced that, while the initial prosecution and trial were flawed and the young men were likely guilty of the robbery, he believed that someone else murdered Betsy, even if all four defendants were convicted of both crimes.

In "Harvest Murder", Michaels wove a story loosely based on the crimes. He invented new names for the defendants, removed a defendant -- in the book there were three, not four -- and posited that the three who robbed Betsy (whose real name was not used in the book), left her alive, if battered and unconscious, and that she was then murdered by the brother of one of the three defendants to make sure that she could not testify against the others when he learned of the robbery, and returned to the scene to "finish the job." When the book was published it immediately drew a lot of attention, receiving good reviews, earning a film deal and Michaels became something of a celebrity. The book advertising and publicity mentioned that it relates to the 30 year old murder of a college student but the advertising and publicity does not identify her by name. One of the original defendants, who in the years since the convictions had changed his name, learned the plot of the novel before it was published and immediately wrote a book of his own, with a wild rambling narrative, in which he neither admitted nor contested guilt, but instead claimed that Michaels' book wrongly accused his brother of the murder. Michaels appears on radio and TV shows about the book and answers questions about and describes the original events, which he covered as a reporter. But he states repeatedly that his book is "loosely based" on the original events and is only a speculation on one possible theory of what really happened. He points out in every interview that the book is fiction and speculation.

The four exonerated defendants have now sued Michaels, and his publisher, claiming defamation, invasion of privacy and violation of their rights of publicity. The book never mentions the actual names of any of the defendants (much less the new name of the defendant who wrote his own book) but, because two of the four accused men were, in fact brothers, one of the brothers claims he has been falsely accused of murder. All claim they were always innocent and that they were harmed to the extent they are being accused anew in "Harvest Murder."

The memo covers these points: (a) assess the strength of these asserted claims; (b) determine if the complaint could survive a motion to dismiss; (c) assess whether any of the defendants -- i.e., Michaels or the publisher, may have counterclaims of any kind, or could invoke some rule (such as Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 or F.R.Civ.P. 11) or fee-shifting device as a way of getting the plaintiffs to back off. Specify which law you choose to use.