Sunday, December 02, 2012
Asked and Answered: Do I need permission to portray real people who died in 1872?
Law Offices of Gordon P. Firemark - Top Los Angeles Theatre & Film Entertainment Lawyer: Bernie asks whether he needs permission to portray a long-dead ship’s captain and his family, in a screenplay that attempts to dispel myths about their disappearance, and presents an alternative hypothesis suitable for the horror film market.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Before I read this article my immediate response was to treat this like music rights. If the person has been dead for a certain amount of time it should be okay, especially with a disclaimer. The person in question here died 140 years ago.
After listening to the lawyer it makes sense to try and get any living hire's permission and have them agree to give you the exclusive right to their story. But then again that could also back fire.
I am in the sam boat as Ms. Guerrero. When I first read the question being asked, I felt that if the person has been deceased for quite some time, there shouldn't be an issue. An example of this would be an historical figure like Abraham Lincoln or Martha Washington. However, the gentleman's arguement and thought process in the video does bring up new questions and issues that need to be addressed. I do believe that yes, if the work being produced degrades or demeans the person in question in anyway, it should be treated with caution. The first step should always be to discuss the issue with the living heirs and see if they have any contention with the use of their ancestor in your work. And while this should not be the final decisive factor, the decision of the family or heirs should most definately weigh in on the process. That being said, there should be a limitation on how far back they should go. If someone were to create a story about Adam and Eve, it would be unrealistic to have every person who believes they are decendents from them be able to claim rights or influence over my production.
Referencing Adam and Eve is a little extreme Tim... just a little.
I think that what the guy said is quite accurate. Yes, it was a while ago, however it is always best to always cover yourself! It is quite possible that the family would be quite happy to sign a contract or they may even offer more information that could add to the story. Who knows!! It is just always better to have that level of security, especially if a large production company decides to produce the script. They may even have to do it themselves at that point. When dollar signs linger, people are always more prone to discuss how affected they were by something/someone that they can easily sue.
Even if you cover all your bases with the heirs and secure their cooperation, there is no guarantee that they will not sue. In our over litigious society it does not matter how iron clad the contract or cooperation is because when you put a pot of money in play people loose sight of any reality. People sue when they have no grounds with a disturbing frequency. This question's answer was remarkably unhelpful. This like most of the legal system and most of life are shades of grey. In the eyes of the law, with the right representation, you can be free to do pretty much anything you want if you are savvy and rich enough. It seems that it will end up being damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Post a Comment