True Stories

[CDL]

Two Part Question:

Part 1 - What etiquette/laws, etc. pertain to the writing of "true stories"? I'm not talking in terms of releases from the characters but, for instance, suppose you are loosely adapting a non-fiction story. Would I be correct to assume you can not hold a copyright to "actual events" and that, as long as your screenplay were not a verbatim extraction of the published account it would be okay?

Part 2 - Is there any particular preference (either way - like/dislike) to true stories - particularly "forgotten true stories" or "based on the forgotten true story" - on the part of execs? In general, how much "creative license" can you take with a true story? For instance, in U-571 they changed the nationality of the crew from British to American. If, say, 40% of your screenplay was fiction, does it still qualify as "based on a true story"?

[GirlinGray]

The author of an account of true events can hold copyright to the presentation of those events in his or her work. So, if you are basing a story on true events and use only one source, you owe the author of that source for the adaptation of his or her material. If you do a lot of research and use numerous sources, you don't because you are not basing your telling on one person's work.

Boy, what was the rest of the question? That was long. . .

Oh, right, copyright to actual events. No, you can't hold a copyright to actual events. You can hold a copyright to the telling of actual events. See above. So, while your work is based on actual events which you can't copyright, you can copyright the script you write based on actual events.

Anyone else can write a script about the same story. They just can't lift your script. If that makes sense.

You sort of have to make up your mind here, do you want to recount an actual event, or do you just think a certain scenario is interesting and you would like to write a story like it but not duplicate it? These are different things. And television shows regularly cover their tails by stating, after say an episode of Law and Order, while a show may bear similarities to an actual event, it is not a retelling of that event, it is fiction.

I do not know whether there is a preference in Hollywood for true stories over fictitious stories or not.

[Actor]

Facts cannot be copyrighted. If it really happened you are free to use whatever source you want.

General practice is to annotate your script and site two independent sources for each fact you use. Be sure both sources are really independent. For instance, if something is reported by two different newspapers, TV stations, wire services, etc. but it turns out that it all really comes from one reporter, then that is really just one source.

If you are mixing fact and fiction then state in your annotation what parts are fiction. Make sure this part does not infringe on anyone's copyright.

Technically it is not necessary to get a release from anyone if you are using a true story. However, it is commonly done to avoid complications. Without a release you cannot deviate from the facts one little bit without risking litigation. That can be a real pain if you are trying to write dialog for a conversation that common sense would tell you must have taken place but no one recorded it at the time.

You do not need a release from the estate of a dead person.

You do not need a release from a person who is serving life in prison.

The courts have ruled that if a book, story, article, etc. is represented as being true then the author cannot change his mind at a later time, claim that it is fiction and get a copyright. The minute the author claims that it is a true story it is public domain forever.

An interesting case is Truman Capote's book <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> In Cold Blood<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, which has been made into two movies. Capote claimed that the book was fiction, although based on fact. This has pretty much cooled the material for anyone else. If you wanted to make a movie based on the same material you would have to make damned sure you didn't use any fictitious material from Capote's book.

[CDL]

Thanks for the replies, Actor and GinG. Two follow-up questions:

"So, if you are basing a story on true events and use only one source, you owe the author of that source for the adaptation of his or her material."

In general, is this something that needs to (or should) be secured prior to querying or pitching the script or would it
be something handled by a studio when (and if) they elected to option or purchase it?

Specifically, the story I am interested in is retold in a book published in the early '60's that received only one printing and that is not of any particular renown or notoriety and, while the author is dead, it can be assumed that someone from his estate owns the copyrights which should have another 50 years or so left before expiry. Also, it can be assumed with total accuracy that all the actual persons involved in this story are currently dead.

In my idea for a screenplay, approximately one quarter of the scenes would be totally make-believe, a fictitious love-theme sub-plot involving one real and one fictitious character would be interwoven through the script and large portions of the dialog as it is retold in the book mentioned would be either embelished or truncated. Also, the title would
be different from that of the book. On the other hand, the script construction is dependant on the facts as presented in this book and, while other sources exist they would account for only a small percentage of the total research on this project.

Given these parameters is there a feeling or opinion that such a project should be (1) completely avoided as a spec project, (2) pursued only after securing releases from the estate of the primary sources (book) author or, (3) pursued as any normal screenplay but accompanied by an acknowledgement of source to anyone who expresses interest in the screenplay for legal follow-up work?

(In any initial pitch [if it ever came to that], I assume the names of the characters could be temporarily changed to protect the idea pending a purchase or option?)

[Actor]

"So, if you are basing a story on true events and use only one source, you owe the author of that source for the adaptation of his or her material."

NO!

The reason for siting two sources in your annotation is to cover yourself, to be sure that material is accurate. All that is really necessary is that the material is fact, not fiction.

I vote for #3, pursue it as any normal screenplay but accompanied by an acknowledgement of source to anyone who expresses interest in the screenplay for legal follow-up work?

[PteranoDon]

Look this "based on a true story" stuff is crap anyway. The movies have only the vaguest connection with the truth.

Based on a true story.
Well, there is a planet called Earth with human beings on it. One of them is named Erin Brockovich.

Get the picture.


Second, no matter how well you do your research, the relatives of the person will sue you anyway. SO, is it a good story we all want to see or isnt it? Let the lawyers figurer the rest of it out.

The woman who wrote the book that Amistad is based on got nothing because of the historical nature (ie true) of the story even though one of the producers had optioned her book in the past.

Go for it.

[jpsinger]

In response to -

"So, if you are basing a story on true events and use only one
source, you owe the author of that source for the adaptation
of his or her material."

You say - NO!

Then you talk about citing references??? In a screenplay???

So, by your logic, I can adapt any non-fiction magazine article I want?

There's a difference between non-fiction stories and public stories. You can't just pick Joe Schmoe off the street, research his lifestory and make a movie about him. But you can do this about Sante Kimes, the grifter/murderer, because her story is public.

By entering the public eye, a person gives up some rights. They become fair game. The same is true for stories. That's why PEARL HARBOR and LIKE MOTHER, LIKE SON (the Sante Kimes story) are public domain, but the rights for THE STRAIGHT STORY and ERIN BROCKOVICH had to be bought.

JP

[Actor]

You don't cite references. You annotate your script. There is a subtle difference.

The annotated script is not the one you submit for consideration. But any potential producer is going to want an annotated script so his legal department can go over it. If you have not done this leg work, they will have to and it may mean the difference between getting your script produced or not.

The annotated script is a "cover your ass" strategy. If your script is a mix of fact and fiction (it most likely will be) then you need to know which is which. Further, you need to be able to prove that the fictional parts are your work.

Don't confuse "public figure" with "celebrity." A celebrity, such as a politician or movie star, supposedly wanted to be a celebrity and sought the notoriety that accompanies it. In so doing they give up most of their rights to privacy. While celebrities are public figures not all public figures are celebrities. War heroes and kidnap victims are public figures but they are not celebrities in the sense we are speaking of here. Inaccurate representations of them can lead to lawsuits.

"So, by your logic, I can adapt any non-fiction magazine article I want?"

Correct, technically! Within limits. You can adapt the facts but you cannot take a given author's words and put then into the mouth of a narrator.

Technically the rights to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Erin Brockovitch<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> and <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> The Straight Story<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> did not HAVE to be bought. But quite often the "rights" to such stories are bought simply to secure the co-operation of the principals and oil the wheels as it were. Buying the "rights" can mean the difference between producing your film now or years later when all the lawsuits have been settled.

[LynnBZ]

If I'm doing a script on a historical figure, and I use several books to do my research, including books on the general culture as well as the figure in question, I should keep a bibliography of the books I use, correct?

Do I also need to keep a running track of where I got the general information to fill in some of the cultural tracks I used? Or is the bibliography enough?

(And yes, I have several books I'm using--not just one.)

Thanks for asking this question! Very relevant to what I'm working on right now.

Lynn

[Actor]

The more information you can provide the lawyers the happier they will be.

[GirlinGray]

Um, historical figures do not sue. They are dead and sort of beyond caring about their portrayal in the media. Lawyers know this so they don't get all panicky about scripts about people who have been dead a hundred years.

I would keep track of where you got what information, though. That way, ten years from now when you are in a live chat discussing the script you wrote for the movie and the Fans of Byron are beating you up for portraying their favorite historical figure in a way they don't like, you can look at your notes (you will need notes because you will for sure have forgotten where you got what in ten years) and say, "Well I got that from this source, it seemed okay to me."