Legalities of making a documentary/biography about a person&#39;s life I just read an article about how Mike Tyson is calling for a boycott of Hulu over a documentary they are making about his life. He says the documentary is 'unauthorized' and that an 'authorized' life story is in development. This got me wondering about the legalities with regards to making a documentary about a person's life. Is it illegal to make a documentary/biography without the subject's permission? I would think not, otherwise Tyson would have other options than only calling for a boycott. Are there certain guidelines that must be met? I would think that libel and defamation wouldn't be legal in a documentary/biography. Does the subject have to already be well known to the public? For example, could Hulu make a documentary about my life (I am not famous at all) even though my life details are still private for the most part? I live in the USA but I am curious about other places too. (Sorry I couldn't think of any better tags)
In the united-states, there is no general right for a person to control or approve a biography or other account of that person's life. Many biographies are &quot;unauthorized&quot;, which simply means that the subject, or in some cases the subject's heirs or family, did not cooperate with the biographer. Sometimes this is even considered to be a point in favor of such a work, on the assumption that an &quot;authorized&quot; biography would tend to slant or even censor things to meet the approval of the subject or the subject's family. There are some restrictions on an unauthorized biography. The first and most obvious is the law of defamation. A biography that includes statements that are both false and defamatory about a living subject could be the subject of a winning lawsuit. Damages in such cases can sometimes be sizable. However, the person suing must show false facts in the work. In many cases damage to reputation must also be shown, although there are some categories of statement that are considered defamation per se, where injury to reputation is assumed and need not be proved. These include a false statement that a person committed a crime, and a statement that a person was guilty of professional misconduct. It used to be considered defamation per se to allege that a woman had had sex outside of marriage, but I doubt that a court would so hold today. Beyond that, in the US, if the subject is a public official or public figure, s/he must show actual malice, that is that the false statement was made knowing that it was false, or with reckless disregard for its possible falsity. This can be hard to prove. In most jurisdictions only the person defamed can sue for defamation. Once that person is dead, no such suit can be brought. Moreover, in the very rare case where a person's reputation is so bad that a court finds that it can suffer no meaningful further injury for certain allegations, even if these were found to be false, the court may dismiss such a suit. See Dykstra v St. Martin's Press New York Superior Court, New York County, Docket Number 153676 for an example. However this would only be relevant in the very unusual case of a &quot;libel-proof&quot; plaintiff, and even then if the conduct of the author or publisher was egregious, the court might hold that punitive damages were possible. The defenses of truth, lack of actual malice, and newsworthiness are far more common. Indeed defamation suits in general are hard to win and expensive to bring. In some US states there is available the tort of publication of private facts. This is different from defamation in that it can still be brought when the facts published were true, while truth is a total defense against a defamation suit. However a private facts suit must establish that the facts were in fact private, or at least not widely known, and that they were published in a way that would be grossly offensive to a reasonable person. Facts that are considered of &quot;legitimate public interest&quot; or &quot;newsworthy&quot; are also not generally protected. Moreover, not every US state allows such suits at all. See Diaz vs Oakland Tribune, Inc 188 Cal Rpt 762 (1982) for a case in which a Private Facts case was sustained, and the steps taken by the subject to keep a sex transition private were a significant issue in the case. In Hawkins vs Multimedia inc 344 SE 2nd 145 (1986) a South Carolina court held that a news story identifying a teenage boy by name as the father of an &quot;illegitimate&quot; child was not newsworthy and a private facts judgement including punitive damages was upheld. In the US, First Amendment protections have been taken to indicate that the courts will not suppress or punish speech or writing without good reason. This makes it harder to win suits over biographies. There have been cases of magazine articles about a particular person who is in no way famous but who was considered &quot;typical&quot;. Such stories have in several cases been upheld against challenges as of &quot;legitimate public interest&quot;. See Arrington vs New York Times Company 434 N.E. 2nd 1319 (1982) In that case the objection was to the use of a person's photo on the cover of the New York Times Magazine who was not actually mentioned in the story, and who alleged that he was not similar to those who were mentioned. The use was upheld.
That really depends what they lie about In the United States, there's no general law against lying. The fact that a statement is false doesn't inherently strip it of protection under the first amendment. Public figures lie to the public all the time. That's why news companies have fact checkers. Was it defamatory? It is, however, illegal to defame someone. If someone makes a false statement of fact (that is, not an opinion) about a person or company, they may be liable for that. Whether they are liable for that depends on a number of factors, including whether the target is a public figure (see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan), the speaker's knowledge of its falsity, and whether the target was damaged by it. Was it part of some other criminal scheme? False statements to the public could be part of some sort of fraud, for instance. Pump and dump schemes, for instance, are illegal. Was it under oath? Lying under oath (such as when testifying in court) would constitute perjury, which is a crime. There are many other situations in which lying could be a crime (such as lying on your taxes), but these are the main ones I can think of that would be about lying to the public. In this case (I'm unfamiliar with the details of what he said, so I'm just going off your description), I can't immediately think of any reason that could lead to liability. Mocking and calling something a &quot;nothing burger&quot; is pretty clearly an opinion, not a false statement of fact. I'm not aware of any securities law against saying you don't like something you're actually invested in (though I'm not especially familiar with securities law).
If the factual information contained in her statement (without regard to the spin or interpretation she places on those facts, which are a matter of opinion) are true, she has every legal right and privilege to continue what she is doing. If the factual information is false in some material respect that damages his reputation, it would be possible for the person who is the subject of the statements to bring a defamation against her seeking money damages, although it is unlikely to prevail and likely to give rise to only a nominal money damages award if he prevails.
A private venue normally has discretion over who may attend their premises, as long as it is not because of membership in a protected class under anti-discrimination law. Note that the communication, as quoted, did not say that the banned person was a threat, but only that one of the performers felt uncomfortable. I do not think that the banned person has any legal recourse, unless they can plausibly assert that this is a case of unlawful discrimination, which the question does not suggest.
The easy part is whether there is copyright protection: yes. It does not matter whether the quotes are in a newspaper, a personal blog, a hardbound book, or on TV; it doesn't matter if the interviewee is right-wing or left-wing or wingless. An interview is protected by copyright. The question is, who holds that right, and in what exact manner? The interview could be a collaborative work; it could be a joint work; it could be the property of the interviewer. In Taggart v. WMAQ, the court points out that for a work to be protected (sect. 101 of the copyright act), it must be ‘fixed’ in a tangible medium of expression ... or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. which interviews are not (assuming the answers were not pre-written). See also Falwell v. Penthouse. The interviewer would own copyright to the compilation of quotes, see for example Quinto v. Legal Times of Washington Regardless of who owns the copyright in each of the quoted passages in the article, there can be no doubt that Quinto owns the copyright in his compilation of the quotations As to ownership of the quotes themselves, Suid v. Newsweek Magazine observes that The author of a factual work may not, without an assignment of copyright, claim copyright in statements made by others and reported in the work since the author may not claim originality as to those statements and Harper &amp; Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 likewise states that an author may not claim copyright in statements made by others and reported verbatim in the author's work What we get from this is that the interviewee cannot claim infringement by the interviewer (they could however claim some form of breach of contract, depending on what the parties agreed to in carrying out the interview), that the interviewer does own copyright of the interview, but not the specific quotes from the interviewee. This leaves unanswered a core question: can an interviewee claim control over their quotes and deny permission to reproduce the quotes? An alternative would be that the quotes are "data" which are in the public domain. I find the latter outcome extremely unlikely, but at any rate, I know of no case law on point.
In general in the US, anyone may photograph anyone else if they are all in a public place, although in some states such a photo may not be used commercially without permission, which must often be paid for and may be refused. It is unusual for police to photograph people on the street, but they might want to document who was present at a particular place and time. They can do so, but I am not at all sure that they can prevent a person from covering his or her face, or turning his or her back, or charge a person who does so with obstruction. I don't think so. Under some circumstances in the US police may ask a person for identification, and may charge a person who refuses to provide it. This varied from one state to another, and usually depends on the specific circumstances. (If a person is driving an automobile, police may demand to see a driver's license, for example.) Unless a police officer puts a person under arrest, the officer has no general right to control that person's actions, beyond instructing the person not to interfere with ongoing police work. I do not think an obstruction charge would hold up for covering one's face or turning away in the absence of an arrest.
In the US, it is not illegal to lie in general. This includes lying about someone: it's not illegal per se to lie about them. What is illegal is slander and libel: lying about someone in a way that hurts their reputation. The defamation doctrine in the US is generally a common-law doctrine (i.e. the rules and limits are based on court decisions, rather than on laws passed by legislatures), although it may differ state-by-state. Depending on the state, some defamation may be criminal; there is no federal criminal defamation. US defamation law is largely defined through its interaction with the First Amendment. While libel is not constitutionally protected, punishment for libel is seriously limited by the need to avoid either punishing protected speech, or chilling potential protected speech (i.e. discouraging people from saying something that would in fact be protected, because they aren't sure whether or not it's protected). Libel in the US only applies to a false statement of fact, or an opinion which implies some false fact. If it can't actually be proven incorrect, it can't be libelous in the US. The question of whether it's a statement of fact doesn't just depend on the literal speech; it includes things like the context, and is a question about what a reasonable person would think. If I were to claim that someone was "literally Hitler," for instance, no reasonable person would think I was seriously claiming that the person was the former leader of Nazi Germany. Now, no reasonable person who is familiar with Twitter would ever assume that the tweet meant Obama literally stood up in front of the UN and said "Please accept this nothingburger in place of a respectable climate plan." So, it only counts as libel if a reasonable person would think it implies some fact. But a reasonable person familiar with Twitter would most likely think Miesel is saying "The president's pollution plan is a pointless piece of political puffery planned to placate principalities and potentates." This is basically a matter of opinion. Even to the extent that it's not a matter of opinion, public figures in the US cannot win a defamation suit unless they show "actual malice:" the speaker must actually know or actually strongly suspect that their statement is false in some material way. It's not enough that a reasonable person would think "this might not be true;" the speaker themselves must doubt the truth of it (they must be reckless, not just negligent). Courts are also extremely deferential to defendants in these cases. While it is technically possible for a public figure to prove defamation, it is exceptionally difficult. If the person didn't know they were falsely attributing the quote, and honesty thought it was correct, they're in the clear. If the quote isn't supposed to be a statement of fact, but it implies false facts, but the speaker honestly thinks those facts are true, they're in the clear. Private figures don't have to meet the actual malice standard to prove defamation. They still need to show that the statement is a statement of fact or something implying false facts; if it's obviously a summary of something they really said, possibly with added editorial comment, they can't prove defamation.
united-states In some countries there are laws prohibiting publishing a person's picture without that person's consent. The US has no such general rule, and many other countries do not either. The details of such laws, where they exist, vary from country to country. In the US there are two kinds of legal action that might be used by a person to stop that person's image from being published. These are a suit for invasion of privacy, and a suit to enforce a person's right of publicity, also called a right of personality. These torts vary from state to state, and are not recognized at all in some states. Invasion of Privacy This has several variants, such as &quot;intrusion upon seclusion&quot;, and &quot;disclosure of private facts&quot;. Intrusion generally applies when someone has entered a private place, such as a dwelling, without permission, and has then taken a photograph, made an audio or video recording, or perhaps a written account, and has published or attempted to publish the image, recording or account. If and only if the publication would be &quot;highly offensive to a reasonable person&quot; then the subject or lawful occupant of the place invaded may be able to obtain money damages, or an injunction against publication. This would not apply to the fact pattern in the question, because the parents would have had a right to be in their own home, or anywhere that such baby photos are likely to have been taken. Intrusion can also apply to one who observes private activities without permission, even if no recording is made. But the &quot;highly offensive&quot; standard still applies. A &quot;private facts&quot; case generally applies when a person (or a small group, such as a family) has attempted to keep certain facts private, but some other person or business has published them (or attempted to publish them). A successful suit will in most states that allow such suits require evidence of some positive effort to keep the facts private, and that the publication would be &quot;highly offensive to a reasonable person&quot;. This might possibly apply in the fact pattern described in the question. But note that the &quot;highly offensive&quot; standard applied to both of these privacy torts. Most typical baby pictures would not be considered &quot;highly offensive&quot;, this is a fairly high bar. It would be a decision ultimately made by the jury or other finder of fact, I believe. For comparison, peeping on a couple having sex in a hotel room has been found to be highly offensive. When a person had sex with another, and had secretly arranged to record a video of the sexual encounter, and later distributed it, that was found to be highly offensive. Right of Publicity This generally prohibits using a person's, name, image or likeness, or &quot;persona&quot; to endorse or advertise anything, or for other commercial purposes, without consent. It is most often applied to unauthorized celebrity endorsements. Most US states have some form of this, but the details vary significantly. Unless the baby pictures were being used to advertise something, or in some commercial manner, this would not apply. If the parents sold baby pictures to someone who used them to advertise, say a day-care, or some baby product, this might apply, although it might be that the parents would be held to have had the right to act as the child's agent. If someone else downloaded the baby pictures from Facebook (or any other such site) and used them in ads, this might well apply. Conclusion It is unlikely in the US that a child could successfully take legal action against a parent for having posted pictures of the child, even if they were embarrassing, unless they were also &quot;highly offensive&quot;. Even then such a suit would be unusual, and might not be successful. It is more likely that a request to the parent would be successful, unless the parties are on vary bad terms. A request to the site to take down such images might work, depending on the site's terms. A DMCA takedown would not work, because the subject does not normally hold copyright to an image, the photographer initially does (unless it is a work made for hire, in which case the employer initially does). This conclusion is specific to US law. The outcome would be different in at least some other countries.