4 ms·

Can't she sue the movie producers of Stillwater? Even if the movie producers didn't officially acknowledge inspiration, Vanity Fair mentions it: > This new fil

Can't she sue the movie producers of Stillwater? Even if the movie producers didn't officially acknowledge inspiration, Vanity Fair mentions it: > This new film by director Tom McCarthy, starring Matt Damon, is “loosely based” or “directly inspired by” the “Amanda Knox saga,” as Vanity Fair put it in a for-profit article promoting a for-profit film, neither of which I am affiliated with There is clearly precedence for this type of lawsuit because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclai...

ghaff 5y ago
Your link explains why that disclaimer is now routinely used.
gumby 5y ago
I think she became a public figure (through no fault of her own, as far as I can tell) and thus would unfortunately likely not be afforded the libel protections of a private citizen.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  It’s horrible that you can’t choose not to become a public figure. You have rights which someone else can get rid of by giving you enough attention.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    It's a balance with freedom of press/speech and like most things there are casualties.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    It seems like it shouldn't be so hard to solve, either. Someone should not become a public figure without demonstrating some kind of intent. If they are not pushing a narrative, trying to influence public opinion, etc, then they do not lose protection. We cannot let the defamers be the ones controlling the definition.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kortilla 5y ago
    So when some CEO decides they don’t want to be a public figure?
    - ghaff 5y ago
      As I understand it, a CEO would generally be a public figure within the scope of what he does as a CEO. Note, though, that in the US, most of what being a public figure affects is the standard for libel (NYT v. Sullivan). Even if you're not a public figure, there's mostly nothing preventing me from writing about you if I want to and truth is pretty much a defense against libel.
- mitchellst 5y ago
  Not a lawyer, but from my understanding of libel law, the "public figure" thing isn't the problem. Merely being famous (and famous for being falsely accused!) won't necessarily make you a public figure for libel purposes. But there's another part of the standard: a defendant must knowingly say things that are substantially false. Referring to Ms. Knox as a "convicted murderer" in a news article, for example, is deceptive in context but it is technically correct. She was convicted. And then on the movie side, it's explicitly fiction, and the character does not share her name. So they can claim the defense that any "false" claim is about their invented character, not about her... and by the way, they have lots of first amendment juice for artistic expression. In the end, you're right. It's a sad story, but she doesn't appear to have legal protection from libel law. The filmmakers should probably be ashamed of themselves, but you don't make a Matt Damon movie without a go-ahead from some high-priced lawyers who know they're in the clear from a liability standpoint. Though, ethics perhaps weren't considered...
stjohnswarts 5y ago
No she can't, the story is far too different. It only touches on a few major points of her story but is 90% different, it would never hold up in court and she would be out court costs and probably financially ruined after the trial was over.
jnwatson 5y ago
Law and Order would have been sued out of business. The "ripped from the headlines" mechanism is a tried and true method for TV procedurals. You might own your likeness, but you don't own your life story.
karaterobot 5y ago
The court case is in the public record, they don't use any real names, and they made it clear that it is not meant to be her story, so I would assume they are covered. I also suspect Dreamworks' lawyers would have briefed the director on what he could and couldn't say in an interview if there was any danger of them getting sued.

ghaff 5y ago

Your link explains why that disclaimer is now routinely used.

gumby 5y ago

I think she became a public figure (through no fault of her own, as far as I can tell) and thus would unfortunately likely not be afforded the libel protections of a private citizen.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
It’s horrible that you can’t choose not to become a public figure. You have rights which someone else can get rid of by giving you enough attention.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  It's a balance with freedom of press/speech and like most things there are casualties.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  It seems like it shouldn't be so hard to solve, either. Someone should not become a public figure without demonstrating some kind of intent. If they are not pushing a narrative, trying to influence public opinion, etc, then they do not lose protection. We cannot let the defamers be the ones controlling the definition.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kortilla 5y ago
  So when some CEO decides they don’t want to be a public figure?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    As I understand it, a CEO would generally be a public figure within the scope of what he does as a CEO. Note, though, that in the US, most of what being a public figure affects is the standard for libel (NYT v. Sullivan). Even if you're not a public figure, there's mostly nothing preventing me from writing about you if I want to and truth is pretty much a defense against libel.
mitchellst 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but from my understanding of libel law, the "public figure" thing isn't the problem. Merely being famous (and famous for being falsely accused!) won't necessarily make you a public figure for libel purposes. But there's another part of the standard: a defendant must knowingly say things that are substantially false. Referring to Ms. Knox as a "convicted murderer" in a news article, for example, is deceptive in context but it is technically correct. She was convicted. And then on the movie side, it's explicitly fiction, and the character does not share her name. So they can claim the defense that any "false" claim is about their invented character, not about her... and by the way, they have lots of first amendment juice for artistic expression. In the end, you're right. It's a sad story, but she doesn't appear to have legal protection from libel law. The filmmakers should probably be ashamed of themselves, but you don't make a Matt Damon movie without a go-ahead from some high-priced lawyers who know they're in the clear from a liability standpoint. Though, ethics perhaps weren't considered...

stjohnswarts 5y ago

No she can't, the story is far too different. It only touches on a few major points of her story but is 90% different, it would never hold up in court and she would be out court costs and probably financially ruined after the trial was over.

jnwatson 5y ago

Law and Order would have been sued out of business. The "ripped from the headlines" mechanism is a tried and true method for TV procedurals. You might own your likeness, but you don't own your life story.

karaterobot 5y ago

The court case is in the public record, they don't use any real names, and they made it clear that it is not meant to be her story, so I would assume they are covered. I also suspect Dreamworks' lawyers would have briefed the director on what he could and couldn't say in an interview if there was any danger of them getting sued.