What if you overcame a serious illness and went on to win Olympic medals? Could a writer or filmmaker decide to tell your inspiring story without consulting you? Or do you “own” the story and control how it’s retold?
Michael Oher, the former NFL player in the 2009 blockbusterblind spot” sued Michael and Anne Leigh Tuohy, the suburban couple who brought him into their home when he was a vulnerable youth.
Oher claimed in its formal complaint that the Toohey family, through forgery, deceit or sheer incompetence, gave 20th Century Fox the exclusive rights to his life story.
Oher went on to say that the Toohey family received millions of dollars for “a story that wouldn’t exist without him,” while he claims he received nothing.
Just a year ago, former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson same anger When he learned that Hulu created a miniseries about his career without his permission.
Tyson alleges: ‘They stole my life story without paying me’ In an Instagram post.
Both Oher and Tyson — not to mention the countless influencers and would-be celebrities — are convinced they own their life stories and can monetize them.and given regularly News coverage of the studio purchase “Life Story Right,” for no surprise why.
As law professors, we have studied this question; our research shows There is no recognized property right under US law, or the law of any other country known to us, over the facts and events of someone’s life.
So why are Oher, Tyson and others complaining? Why do publishers and studios often pay big bucks for rights that don’t exist?
no monopoly on truth
In most states, commercial use of an individual’s name, image, and likeness is subject to so-called “Publicity’. But that right usually applies to merchandise, apparel, and product endorsements, not facts and actual events. So you can’t sell a t-shirt with Mike Tyson’s face on it without his permission, but write A book about his rise to fame is fair game.
In the United States, the freedom to describe historical events is rooted in free speech clause The basic tenet of the First Amendment is that no one — whether a news organization, a political party, or a celebrity — has a monopoly on the truth.
The law does not sanction invasion of privacy, so an investigative reporter who reveals some unpleasant details about your past cannot be published unless there is a legitimate public interest in doing so. The spread of false information will not be tolerated. This could lead to a defamation suit.
However, the First Amendment does allow authors and filmmakers to truthfully describe factual events of which they have legal knowledge. They do not need to obtain authorization from or pay the relevant personnel.
The origin of life story “rights”
However, filmmakers are used to paying for the rights to repackage or use existing content.
Commissioning scripts based on books, depicting comic book characters in films, and including hit songs in film soundtracks all require copyright permission.Even showing an architecturally unique building often requires permission from the copyright holder, which is why the video game Spider-Man: Miles Morales had to demolish the chrysler building.
In addition to these other rights and licenses, Hollywood studios have been paying individuals for the stories of their lives for at least a century.
However, unlike a copyright license, a life story deal does not involve acquiring known intellectual property. “Rights” in life stories are not rights at all. Instead, they bundle together a series of contractual promises: Subjects agree to work with studios, not to work on similar projects, and to insulate studios from allegations of defamation and invasion of privacy.
By wrapping these promises under the umbrella of a “life story copyright,” the studio can signal to the market that they’ve secured a particularly interesting story.
Netflix’s expedited settlement with convicted fraudster, for example Anna Sorokinthe subject of the popular streaming series “invent anna,”There seems to prevent competitive adaptation Sorokin’s story.
What’s more, acquiring rights to life stories has become so common that in many cases it’s seen as a de facto requirement for film financing and insurance coverage, and thus part of the standard approval process for many projects.
exceptions do not constitute the rule
As always, though, there are exceptions to the law.
Notably, the producers of the 2010 film The Social Network not licensed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg before dramatizing his company’s origin story. In moving forward with the project, they risked defamation or publicity lawsuits from Zuckerberg and others depicted in the film.But their gamble paid off: Zuckerberg criticize his descriptionno prosecution.
However, other subjects who have been portrayed as dramatic figures without authorization have sued to recoup some of their profits.
For example, screen legend Olivia de Havilland, Sue FX Studios Yin portrayed her briefly in a miniseries about Hollywood rivals Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. She won at trial, but an appeals court overturned her victory, citing the producers’ First Amendment rights.
Lawsuits can even be filed when character names and story details are changed. U.S. Army Sergeant. Jeffrey Sarver, Bomb Disposal Expert, Inspired Oscar-Winning Film “The Hurt Locker,” sue a film producer for violating its right of publicity. He lost.
Lawsuits like this are not common. But many producers hope to avoid flimsy lawsuits and bad publicity by acquiring rights that don’t exist.
history is in the public domain
At the end of the day, there’s nothing wrong with paying individuals to collaborate on features about themselves, and a lot of it is right. Doing so shows respect for the subject and makes for a smoother production.
But the fact is that access to life stories has entered the popular consciousness, prompting a widespread belief that any depiction of a series of factual events will result in those being portrayed being well paid. This expectation increases production costs and the risk of litigation, thereby holding back otherwise worthy projects and depriving the public of meaningful content based on true stories.
What can be done in this situation?
an idea we have written It would prevent publicity rights law – the basis of many life story lawsuits – from being used against works that communicate ideas and tell stories, such as books, movies and TV shows.
Perhaps the most important thing that can be done, however, is to educate people that they have no right to profit from every description of the events of their lives.
We believe that collective history is in the public domain.
Jorge Contreras is the James T. Jensen Professor of Transaction Law and Director of the Intellectual Property and Technology Law Program, University of Utah and Dave Fagundes is Baker Botts LLP Professor of Law and Director of Research, University of Houston Law Center.
This article is reproduced from dialogue Licensed under Creative Commons.read source article.
Svlook
