## Facts

- A film produced and distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Ltd. depicted events surrounding Rasputin and his death at the hands of aristocratic conspirators.
- The film included a fictional Russian princess (“Princess Natasha”) closely resembling Princess Irina Alexandrovna Youssoupoff, the wife of Prince Felix Youssoupoff (one of Rasputin’s real-life killers).
- In the film, Natasha is portrayed as being seduced or “ravished” by Rasputin, and her storyline is intertwined with the film’s character corresponding to Rasputin’s killer.
- Princess Irina alleged that reasonable viewers would understand Natasha to represent her and would take the film to mean that Irina had been sexually assaulted or seduced by Rasputin.
- Witnesses for the plaintiff testified they identified Natasha as Irina; witnesses for the defendant denied that identification and suggested Natasha could represent other figures.
- A jury found for Princess Irina and awarded substantial damages (reported as £25,000).

## Issues

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to find that reasonable viewers would identify “Princess Natasha” with Princess Irina.
2. Whether the depiction of Natasha as seduced or raped by Rasputin could be found defamatory of Princess Irina.
3. Whether a portrayal can be defamatory even if it imputes no moral fault to the plaintiff, so long as it would cause the plaintiff to be “shunned or avoided.”
4. Whether a cinematographic film constitutes “permanent” matter capable of amounting to libel rather than slander.
5. Whether the damages award was so excessive that the appellate court should set it aside or reduce it.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed MGM’s appeal and affirmed the plaintiff’s verdict and damages.
- The court held there was evidence from which the jury could find that viewers would identify Natasha as Princess Irina.
- The court held the portrayal of Natasha as seduced or raped could be defamatory of Princess Irina.
- The court held defamation includes imputations likely to cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided even without moral blame.
- The court treated a film as a form of libel because the combination of recorded images and speech constitutes permanent matter.
- The court declined to interfere with the jury’s damages award absent exceptional circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Identification in defamation may be established by circumstantial similarities and audience understanding; when supported by evidence, it is for the jury to decide whether the publication refers to the plaintiff.
- Material is defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking people or to cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided; moral culpability is not required.
- An imputation that a woman has been raped may be defamatory because it can harm social reputation and treatment even if she is portrayed as a victim.
- A cinematographic film, as recorded and repeatable matter combining photographic material and speech, can constitute libel (not merely slander).
- Damages in libel are primarily for the jury; appellate intervention is limited to cases showing legal error or an award so extreme as to indicate improper direction or perversity.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a libel judgment based on a film’s portrayal of a character reasonably understood to represent the plaintiff and reaffirmed that defamation extends to statements likely to cause social avoidance even without imputing moral wrongdoing; it also recognized films as permanent publications capable of libel and deferred to the jury on damages.


Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Ltd., 50 T.L.R. 581 (C.A. 1934)