Hollywood Reporter: Thanks to two recent judicial decisions, appeals courts will be grappling with issues that could impact the future of biopics, documentaries and maybe even journalism. As a result, Hollywood studios, press organizations and others are coming out in force to warn of consequences.
3 comments:
This is a tough one for me because I understand the position movie studios and journalists are in. As artists and reporters, they are right to protect themselves from slippery slopes. But I’m also not completely convincing the argument of the amicus brief completely holds water.
In this case, the genre of the film would seem important when drawing connections to journalism and reporting. If the nature of the film is itself journalistic then that film should be protected from anything that would stop them from speaking with and using a person’s voluntary testimony regardless of its legality. Without that protection, journalists couldn’t legally publish information gathered from whistleblowers or sources not technically at liberty to comment. But if the nature of the film is not journalistic, I’m not sure the studio should have that protection. In the case of Feud: Bette and Joan, I don’t believe they should have the right to portray a living person without their permission, for a film that is more clearly for entertainment purposes.
Like Rachel I'm am torn on this subject. While I agree with her in regards to the idea of documentaries or movies with journalistic intentions and the fact that they should most definitely be protected due the fact the precedent that ruling in regards to a previous contract by a party not directly attached to the production should not tie the hands of those on the project because the were not involved in any contract and also it would undermine a great deal of journalistic endeavors. As to the notion of using the likeness of a living person in show not meant to be 100% factual it becomes a hard issue to nail down. First yes I think it is appropriate to try a reach out and get permission to use their likeness but I don't feel that it is 100% necessarily as long as you make it strongly known that it is dramatized work. It we limited to needing living permission than you run into problems with satire and other mediums that are meant to shine a light onto a character but more likely than not is not approved of by said person. I.e. SNLs skits of past and current presidents. But it is murky water to try and navigate.
I agree with both Rachel and Dave in part and dissent in part. Yes, a studio should be free to create any movie or tv series based on journalism so long as the use of the material in the research does not violate a breach of confidentiality. The problem arrises when movie makers take liberty to tell a tale about how something happened when they don’t have all the facts. I don’t want to get too deep into the legal issue without having read the opinion of the district court in full as well as all of the Amici briefs that have been filed in this case. I do agree that if a person is living, even in advanced age as in the case of Ms. De Havilland, permission should be sought before using any image, real or fake. Just placing a disclaimer at the beginning that no direct connection should be inferred will just not work. Courts need to take a hard line in protecting the rights of individuals both living and deceased against unauthorized use of their image without proper compensation to their estate. Everyone, even a celebrity is entitled to ownership protection of their image.
Post a Comment