Clive Davis has published his autobiography, The Soundtrack of My Life, and at least one person is not singing his praises. On her blog, Kelly Clarkson expressed disdain for what she describes as “false information about me and my music.” In his book, Davis allegedly writes that though Clarkson is very talented, she hated the tracks “Since U Been Gone” and “Behind These Hazel Eyes” when she first heard them. Consequently, she wanted both tracks removed from the album. Clarkson claims that she did not express any hatred for “Since U Been Gone,” and the recollection of her crying in his office over a song was when he disliked “Because of You,” a song she had written.
When a celebrity claims to be the subject of false information, the legal claim that often comes to mind is defamation. Unfortunately for celebrities, defamation is difficult to prove because they have to show that an individual published false information maliciously or with intent to damage their reputation. Which explains the ability to read stories like Beyoncé faked her pregnancy or Kim Kardashian has butt implants. The intent is likely to profit from the story rather than to damage the celebrity.
But it’s even more interesting when one celebrity discredits another for profit. While Clive Davis did issue a statement via twitter recognizing Kelly Clarkson as a talented artist, and that the book was fact checked by several independent individuals, is it unprofessional for Davis to disclose details concerning his artists? Did he breach an implied level of confidentiality or should celebrities accept that their work relationships are subject to exposure? In other words, does it come with the territory?