I’ve always worked on Other People’s Films. Now, I can’t write my way out of a single-act paper bag; but I’d like to try to write a script based on a ‘true story’. The source is a book that was originally published in 1940, and concerns a place that no longer exists. The book comprises accounts of hauntings that were published in various magazines and newspapers, and the author’s investigation of the reports. I’m thinking the script would start with the Author having lunch and receiving a telephone call asking him to investigate the hauntings. From Hell comes to mind, in that it portrayed people who actually existed investigating the Jack The Ripper killings.
Since the author of the book used newspaper accounts, letters and interviews to write his book, would I be able to write a script based on the same 70-year-old material (as published in his book) without running into copyright problems?
Could I use the names of the actual people?
If I cannot use the names of actual people, could I use their publicly-published accounts to tell the story of ‘actual’ events without running into copyright problems simply by changing their names?
One cannot copyright facts, only the expression of those facts. History is free for all to use. (Not that I’m saying any accounts of hauntings are factual. For these purposes, newspaper reports are sufficient.)
The usual presumption in law is that one cannot libel the dead, although California law allows dead celebrities significant protection. Unless the names of the people are important to the story, however, I would advise making up names. Just because.
I’ve ran into this before myself. Though there is no single right answer until a judge says so, the generally accepted answers are (as I understand them):
Not without written permission from the author or the family.
Not without written permission from the family.
You could use the stories as a reference, but not actual names.
You don’t say what your involvement in this film would be, but selling a spec script based on a true story without proper permission would be next to impossible. Studios have too much invested to risk the liability or exposure.
Though there are some kids there, if you can get advice from myosis-1, Britbloke, finalact4, jwillis81 or BobSnz (among others) this writer’s board is a good place for advise. There are several industry insiders there, including working script writers, actor/writers and prodco readers.
I’m also skeptical of Hombre’s advice. It you’re using an actual event reported in newspapers, find the article. If it exists, they you can fictionalize it without any conflict with the author of the book that references it.
Changing the names might be prudent. And why should it matter if it’s based on a real incident or not? You’re writing a play, not a nonfiction account.
This is true. But does not apply to naming real people in news stories unless that person by definition is a public person.
Nor can you copyright an idea. But write a love story based on the Titanic (or any big ship for that matter) and try to sell it to Hollywood.
I could ask for a cite as well.
I’ve been through the Hollywood machine.
I have written and optioned a movie script and have written another based on a true-ish story. I have consulted entertainment lawyers, producers and spoken personally with fellow ‘name’ screenwriters. I have pre-pitched my ideas to production companies. The consensus of all of these people is that you need written permission.
I cannot cite my experiences so easily as providing a url. And of course Johnny L.A. is free to disregard my advice based on that, but writing a screenplay from scratch in no walk in the park and requires a reasonable investment of your time.
Even if he were to write this using real people’s names without permission, get sued and go to trial and win (unlikely) there is no way anyone would touch it. Better safe than sorry.
I have had this and similar discussions with so many people not in the industry.
There is more to it than simple legalities. If you are simply out to provide case law then write and bring the full weight of the legal system to your cause (Not that I’m saying you would win).
But if you want to be a paid working writer in Hollywood you have to play by their rules.
I just wanted to note that adapting a “true story” into a film script isn’t any easier than writing a strictly fictional script; in some ways, it may actually be harder, given that most “true stories” don’t have a traditional narrative structure and thus have to be selectively edited and shoehorned into something that works as cinematic fiction.
A case in point, if I may select the obvious example, is Susan Orlean’s The Orchid Thief, an interesting if oft-rambling narrative about orchid poacher John Larroche, of which screenwriter wonderkind Charlie Kaufman was contracted to write an adapation. Kaufman, by his own admission, utterly failed to adapt the book as written, and instead wrote a script about a screenwriter called Charlie Kaufman who was contracted to adapt The Orchid Thief into a screenplay but was having problems so instead he wrote a script about a screenwritter…ad nausum. (At a festival showing at the Arclight which was followed by a Q&A with Kaufman and Jonze, Kaufman stated that he fully expected the submission script for Adaptation to be the end of his abortive writing career and pretty much ground it out to satisify contract requirements and his own desire to finish the project in some way, shape, or form; though I suspect he also had way to much fun excoriating Hollywood archtypes to let it lie.)
Anyway, being based on a true story gives you a genesis for the script, but it scarcely writes itself; even if you’re able to integrate existing statements as dialog and so forth, you still have to organize the story, figure out how to present it (linear, flashback, one POV, multiple interpretations, et cetera) and everything else that goes with telling a compelling story, plus you have to “remain true” to the actual events or risk incurring the wrath of those who insist on factual purity.
As for the legal issues: in general, news services enjoy protection against suits regarding the use of real names and events–as long as they are not blatently libeling or slandering the individual in question–because of the nature of their business and common law precident; ditto for documentarians. With entertainments, however, the lines on fair use are more blurry; you’ll recall that Hedy Lamarr sued Mel Brooks over the use of her name and that he settled with her out of court, and that was a fanciful reference that didn’t defame or slander her in any significant way. I’d definitely talk with a lawyer experience in the entertainment field before using anyone–even a dead person with an active estate–before using names or specific details without permission and written release.
I think hombre is at best conflating different ideas.
There is a difference between writing the stories of people who are living and those who are dead. The people in the newspaper articles in the OP probably are dead, and their estates have no legal standing of any kind. If you want to use a living person’s experiences in a story I would make a deal with them, too.
The other issue is whose account of these experiences you are adapting. If you are adapting a magazine article or book, you run into that author’s copyright. However, most newspapers of the 1940s did not copyright their stories. There was no real point in copyrighting a disposable product and there was no presumption of copyright from the time of writing as there is today. The Titanic mention is purely a red herring: the various movies over the years were based on book accounts, which is precisely what is not the issue here.
I advised changing the names of the real people because we do live in a litigious society. Other than that, there is no need to get permissions. From whom? The dead people? The dead writers? All you need do is slap on an “inspired by a true story” label. Admittedly, this has as much legality as calling a candy bar “goodylicious,” but it seems to make mouths water in the same way.
This is simply not true. Their estates do have a legal standing.
If it is about a living person, they will indeed have a say in it.
Have you any experience in this field at all? Again this is false.
If it gets made into a movie. That would require getting past the production company legals.
Sorry if I did not answer the OP directly as you would wish. I was giving what I believe to be the factual answer based on my experience. I still believe it is so.
I may have brought together two angles on the situation but at least I didn’t pass off opinions as fact.
I was trying to help shed light on the nature of the business in general.
