"Pen Name" vs. "Internet Pseudonym"
In Missouri, it is possible to sue for defamation of a pen name, but not for defamation of an internet pseudonym. The basic fact situation is as follows. Plaintiff has written several erotic stories under a "pen name," but has not sold any work for profit. Defendant made several statements about Plaintiff's "pen name" which plaintiff now alleges are false and defamatory.
Defendant makes a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the grounds that because plaintiff has never sold any of his works for profit, nor is there any realistic likelihood that he ever will, his "pen name" is not a true pen name for purposes of Missouri defamation law, but is instead a mere internet pseudonym.
Who wins? Can you cite any authority for your argument? I.e., I'm looking for someone who actually knows something about the distinction between "pen names" and "internet pseudonyms" here.
Thanks.
Couple of more quick facts:
The stories were published on various internet erotic stories sites. Plaintiff's stories have been downloaded by several thousand people. The allegedly defamatory comments were posted in the review section of one of the erotic stories sites.
One more fact: the stories are not generally well received by readers, but a few readers really like them.
Re: "Pen Name" vs. "Internet Pseudonym"
As I do a bit more reading, it looks like the distinction might be rooted in the "right of publicity," or the right of people to create a public persona and profit from it. But I'm limited in my access to legal research materials. Is it *necessary* to a defamation of a pen name claim that it be a pen name used for profit, or seriously and demonstrably intended to be used for profit?
If you don't know of any Missouri authority on point, I'd be happy to be pointed to authority from other jurisdictions. In my reading of Missouri case law so far, I haven't found a case where a persona not used for profit has ever sued for defamation. But that doesn't mean Missouri courts have ever spoken to the issue.
Of course, the answer could be rooted in basic Missouri defamation law on damages. I think the gravamen of a Missouri defamation claim is damage to one's ability to earn a living. Before you can recover any ancillary damages under Missouri defamation, i.e., humiliation, emotional distress, etc., I believe you have to demonstrate actual injury to earning capacity. If that's the case, then it would seem that one would not be able to "defame" a hobby pen name.
Maybe I need to read the Missouri case law on damages closely.
Re: "Pen Name" vs. "Internet Pseudonym"
No, that isn't right. Damages aren't predicated wholly on the ability to earn a living. Damages can be predicated on mere injury to reputation, whether or not it affects the ability to earn a living.
Still, there's a significant difference between injuring one's real world identity, and injuring one's not-for-profit internet identity. And offhand, I can't actually find any cases stating outright that it's possible to sue even for defamation of a pen name (though it makes sense when the pen name is a for- profit pen name).
Re: "Pen Name" vs. "Internet Pseudonym"
Tallking to yourself it looks like.
First, criticism is not defamation. Opinion is protected by the constitution. If someone says your story sucks, is badly written, makes no sense, is not erotic, etc., that is OPINION and fully protected. If someone says your story is plagerized, that might be actionable.
To sue for defamation of a pen name, there has to be income associated with that name to have any chance of collecting damages.
Is this a school test or something, or do you really think you have a chance in hades of winning such a case.
Re: Defamation of Pseudonyms
Try searching in Google Scholar.