# "Meet The Fockers" - factual/legal Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 9, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953 "2004-12-09T17:27:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/41 "2004-12-10T23:14:19Z")
Somewhere the truth is out there about using people’s names… ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/42 "2004-12-10T23:19:57Z")
> [@Crandolph](#): > > Interesting! that’s different than picking out a name you know already exists then trying pay all of those people off, especially for $1 each. But they do not pay off **all of those people** , just having a contract with a single one provides you with the legal protection you want. ---
**Author:** ![Julius\_Henry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@Julius\_Henry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Julius_Henry)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/43 "2004-12-10T23:47:13Z")
Back in the '30s, Groucho and Chico Marx had a radio show called “Beagle, Shyster, and Beagle” in which Groucho played a lawyer named Waldorf Beagle. I got the following paragraph from [this](http://otrsite.com/articles/artjf010.html) site. The bolding is mine. > [@](#): > > Their first network radio show was part of a series called “Five Star Theater” which was sponsored by Esso Gasoline, and featured a different program each weekday evening, including “Charlie Chan” and a light opera show. The Monday night entry was “Beagle, Shyster, and Beagle, Attorneys at Law” starring Groucho and Chico. By the fourth episode, **a lawyer whose real name was Beagle, threatened a libel suit if the title was not changed**. Accordingly, episodes 5 through 26 were named “Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel”. This series aired from 11/28/32 to 5/22/33. You can read a little [here](http://www.hgwt.com/hgwt8old.htm) about a successful lawsuit over the TV show _Have Gun, Will Travel_. I have no knowledge about movie studios paying people to use their names, but it would seem that there has long been evidence that it is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Crandolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7cd45c/32.png) [@Crandolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crandolph)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2004, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/44 "2004-12-12T06:02:29Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > But they do not pay off **all of those people** , just having a contract with a single one provides you with the legal protection you want. I can’t imagine how that would be the case if the fictional character didn’t resemble _any_ of the real people with that name. Anyone have a legal cite for this? (This would also seem to suggest that if you happen to have the same name as a fictional character created before you were born you could also hold up production of a film or show with that name, and I find this hard to believe.) ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/45 "2004-12-13T15:25:37Z")
BobT: > [@](#): > > There’s a Michael Corleone who lives in Mineola, NY. Did he get a buck from Francis Coppolla? More likely, he got an offer he couldn’t refuse. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/46 "2004-12-13T17:27:27Z")
I don’t think there is a legal reason to have to pay for someone’s name. However, I think it is prudent, business wise, to avoid a potentially costly law suit. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/47 "2004-12-13T17:32:38Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Would they really have to find someone called Bilbo Baggins, or Albus Dumbledore? You are aware, aren’t you, that Tolkien exchanged letters, after LOTR was published, with Sam Gamgee, the grandson of the Gamgee who invented Gamgee-cotton swabs (hence the tortured puns on the interrelationships between the Gamgee and Cotton families of Hobbiton and Bywater)? ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/48 "2004-12-13T20:34:29Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > On the director’s commentary on the “Fight Club” DVD (yes I listened to it), they mentioned searchin nationwide for Tyler Durdens and Marla Singers (pretty much the only characters named in the film) to get their approval/promise not to sue. They found no Tylers, and only 1 Marla Singer, who incidentaly, could not have cared less. Just thought I’d mention it. As I recall from the commentary (yup, I listened to it too) they were fairly upset initially at finding only one Marla Singer. The reason is that if they find multiple possessers of a name, they don’t have to worry about getting permission as long as their character isn’d modeled on any one of them because they can argue that they used the name generically. However, if there is exactly one possesser of the name, they would have a better-than-average shot at a defemation suit. So, they either had to get the real Marla Singer’s permission to use her name or the studio would force them to change it for the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Crandolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7cd45c/32.png) [@Crandolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crandolph)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/49 "2004-12-13T21:20:55Z")
> [@Loopus](#): > > However, if there is exactly one possesser of the name, they would have a better-than-average shot at a defemation suit. Why would this be the case if the name is the same but none of the attributes of the character are? I should think that you’re more likely to be sued over similarities to actual events than over coincidental naming involving events which have nothing to do with the real person’s life. As the Zissou example demonstrates, it’s pretty difficult to come up with a realistic sounding name that no one has. (This is also suggesting that the productions of TV and movies are going about the process backasswards, picking out names randomly, writing scripts and shooting scenes, and\* then\* doing searches for the names… wouldn’t professionals have a better system down for this by now?) Again, I’d really like to see a legal cite on any of this. ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/50 "2004-12-13T21:39:17Z")
> [@Crandolph](#): > > Why would this be the case if the name is the same but none of the attributes of the character are? Well, the character of Marla Singer is depressed, suicidal, immoral, and a little psychotic. The real Marla Singer could make a case for defamation of character because someone with her name (and the name is _only_ hers, note) is portrayed negatively. It wouldn’t necessarily be a _good_ case, but if it’s good enough to have a chance of making it to court, the studio would rather avoid it entirely than risk it, even if they were sure of victory > [@](#): > > As the Zissou example demonstrates, it’s pretty difficult to come up with a realistic sounding name that no one has. (This is also suggesting that the productions of TV and movies are going about the process backasswards, picking out names randomly, writing scripts and shooting scenes, and\* then\* doing searches for the names… wouldn’t professionals have a better system down for this by now?) Well, in the case of _Fight Club_, the name Marla Singer was originally used in the book, and the filmmakers wanted to use the same name. The writer of the book didn’t do any name research, as he wasn’t as worried about being sued as a major studio is. Also, the book had a much smaller audience than the movie, as Chuck Palahniuk is (or was) a fairly obscure author. ---
**Author:** ![Crandolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7cd45c/32.png) [@Crandolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crandolph)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/51 "2004-12-13T22:00:24Z")
> [@Loopus](#): > > Well, the character of Marla Singer is depressed, suicidal, immoral, and a little psychotic. … > > The writer of the book didn’t do any name research, as he wasn’t as worried about being sued as a major studio is. Also, the book had a much smaller audience than the movie, as Chuck Palahniuk is (or was) a fairly obscure author. If the real Marla Singer isn’t any of those things, Marla Singer being a pretty realistic sounding/humdrum name (there was really only one of those?! Wow!), I should think there’s no case at all for a lawsuit. Why wouldn’t the author and, more importantly, the publisher, of a best-selling work of written fiction have to worry about this same issue if in fact it’s a real one? Now we’ve taken this supposition about the law to the point where it doesn’t even have internal consistency. Never thought I’d say this, but: _Is there a lawyer in the house?_ Incidentally, _Saturday Night Live_ used my name for a skit back in the late 70s. There are a good 15 people who can be Googled with my name and it doesn’t appear that our lives and the character in the skit have anything in common. I find the supposition that SNL should’ve been getting an OK from one of us to use the common Anglo-Saxon-derived surname and common male first name in combination sometime in the week they had to produce the piece to be ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/52 "2004-12-15T00:51:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Homer: Your honor? I’d like to sue the producers of “Police Cops” for twenty million dollars for improper use of my name. > Judge: Court finds in favor of “Police Cops”. Next case. > Homer: [shuffles papers] Then I’d like to legally change my name! > Judge: What name would you prefer? > Homer: Any of these will be fine. > Judge: Hmm. “Hercules Rockefeller”. “Rembrandt Q. Einstein”. “Handsome B. Wonderful”. Huh, I’m going to give you the only name you spelt correctly. From this day forward, your name shall be … > > [cut to a shot of Lisa, reading from a sheet of paper on the Simpsons’ couch] > > Lisa: “Max Power”? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953/53 "2004-12-15T06:59:25Z")
> [@Crandolph](#): > > If the real Marla Singer isn’t any of those things, Marla Singer being a pretty realistic sounding/humdrum name (there was really only one of those?! Wow!), I should think there’s no case at all for a lawsuit. In the interests of partially clearing this question up, I went back to my source (the _Fight Club_ DVD commentary) and transcribed the relevent part. This is from director David Fincher’s solo track, at about the 26th minute. There are four separate commentary tracks, so it’s possible it was also discussed on some other track, but I think this is what I’m remembering. This is kind of an aside, in between talking about problems setting the movie in a specific place. They left the location ambiguous, because they didn’t want to bother getting clearances from a real city, and, as a realated topic, he brings says this (obviously the wording looks awkward because it’s a text transcription of spontaneous speech): > [@](#): > > **David Fincher, _Fight Club_ audio commentary** > I think there was a… There was actually a situation with Marla Singer where, when they did the name clearance on Marla Singer, they went and they do, like, this global search or at least, you know, continental United States, they do a search for Marla Singer. And had they found five or six Marla Singers or a thousand Marla Singers it wouldn’t have been an issue because, of course, somebody says “Hey that’s a… I’m being disparaged in this movie, my… you know, this chain smoking, you know, person addicted to support groups, you know, you’re disparaging me.” But if there’s a thousand you can always say, “Well, it’s not you, it’s meant to be this other person,” or whatever, “and prove that it’s you.” And, uh, so you don’t have to get any kind of clearances. But there’s only one [laugus] one Marla Singer in the, in the continental United States, in Illinois somewhere. And, of course, as soon as attorneys get involved, you know, the whole thing gets completely fucked up, so it was like somebody called her and told her that there was this book and that we’re making a movie that’s based on this character and it had her name and then all of the sudden her attorneys are calling and they, they have to pay this person off. So, that’s all I really know. That’s all I’ve got. But, like I said, I think the studios worry about the threat of a lawsuit going to court to court at all, not just about whether or not it will be a successful lawsuit. Fighting in court is expensive whether you win or not. But I don’t really know. _Is_ there a lawyer in the house? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meet-the-fockers-factual-legal-question/278953.md?page=2)