4 ms·

>Studios will rename characters in biopics if they can't secure rights to the person the character was based on. What circumstances would require a film produc

by jasode 9y ago

>Studios will rename characters in biopics if they can't secure rights to the person the character was based on. What circumstances would require a film production to ask permission of a real person before an actor could portray him? E.g. The film "The Social Network" didn't ask Mark Z for permission to portray him in an unflattering way: https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/2108/how-can-a-studio-make-a-biographic-film-like-the-social-network https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/2108/how-can-a-st...

PeterisP 9y ago
IMHO the distinction is that situation the events must be true. The person can't prevent you from portraying the facts, but if you wan't to take some "artistic liberty" about what happened, then you'd better either get their permission or change their name.
gamblor956 9y ago
Defamation would not apply because they didn't make knowingly false statements about him, or at least claims that they didn't have some historical source for like roommates or classmates. (The higher standard applies because he is a public figure.) Invasion of privacy did not apply because he was a public figure and held to the higher standard for IOP claims. Pretty much everything in the movie has already been revealed before, so there isn't anything private that was revealed in the movie itself. Mark Z could have had a case for publicity rights. The only problem is...what damages did he suffer? It's likely that his legal team realized that they could only ever win a relative pittance in damages but not block the distribution of the movie, and suing would just trigger the Streisand effect, so they just did nothing. (His damages would likely have been based on the amounts paid to other celebrities for their life stories...usually in the range of $250k to $5 million, a pittance for a billionaire.)

by jasode 9y ago

PeterisP 9y ago

IMHO the distinction is that situation the events must be true. The person can't prevent you from portraying the facts, but if you wan't to take some "artistic liberty" about what happened, then you'd better either get their permission or change their name.

gamblor956 9y ago

Defamation would not apply because they didn't make knowingly false statements about him, or at least claims that they didn't have some historical source for like roommates or classmates. (The higher standard applies because he is a public figure.) Invasion of privacy did not apply because he was a public figure and held to the higher standard for IOP claims. Pretty much everything in the movie has already been revealed before, so there isn't anything private that was revealed in the movie itself. Mark Z could have had a case for publicity rights. The only problem is...what damages did he suffer? It's likely that his legal team realized that they could only ever win a relative pittance in damages but not block the distribution of the movie, and suing would just trigger the Streisand effect, so they just did nothing. (His damages would likely have been based on the amounts paid to other celebrities for their life stories...usually in the range of $250k to $5 million, a pittance for a billionaire.)