There has been an interesting court case going on in Florida that has had my attention. Basically, the family members of a couple of the characters from “The Perfect Storm” were suing the studio for breaking a law that prohibits commercial use of someone’s name or likeness without their consent. Sounds like a fair law to me.
Well… the family members were not only NOT asked for permission by the studio, but the families are also quite upset by how the movie portrayed the characters with material that was not based on fact (stuff the studio made up). The good folks at The Globe and Mail give us the following:
“[Clooney] played a dark character, sort of a Capt. Ahab in that he was so consumed with chasing the whale that he lost sight of safety and more prudent concerns,” said Stephen Calvacca, the lawyer who represented the families, who live in Bradenton. “That never happened. That part was false and the studios knew it.”
The lawsuit failed. The court decided that that the Florida law can’t be applied to movies and other forms of entertainment because the law was written to protect people from being used to promote products. I really disagree with this. The selling of products and the marketing of films are both forms of market business. One should not be distinguished from the other.
However, there was precedence for the ruling in a similar case involving Bob Dylan where a person failed to sue the entertainment industry over a similar cause:
Patty Valentine suing Bob Dylan, claiming his song Hurricane falsely implied that she was part of a conspiracy to wrongly convict prizefighter Rubin “Hurricane” Carter of murder.
So basically the previous court decision gave this court no choice but to throw the case out. But it still doesn’t feel right to me.
The lawyer for the Studio was obviously happy with the decision. But his comments just gave me chills:
“We are thrilled that the Florida Supreme Court so resoundingly affirmed the principles of free expression that were at stake in this case,” said Warner Bros. spokesman Scott Rowe. “In rejecting the plaintiffs claims, the Court upheld the rights of all artists, whether filmmakers or authors, to create works that are inspired by real events without being forced to interpret those events in a particular way.”
So according to the Studio, free speech means you get to make up false stories about people that make them look bad… call them “True Stories”… not get their permission or the permission of their families.. and that’s free expression?!?! I also love how he called telling the truth as being “Forced to interpret those events in a particular way.”
I don’t know… this one is a sensitive subject. How would you or I like it if it was our dad who died on the Andrea Gail… and then some studio makes a movie… using material they just made up on their own… that makes our dad look like a greedy bastard who put the lives of himself and his crew in jeopardy over greed… and then marketed it as “Based on the true Story”.
Studios should be free to tell stories… yes… even ones “Based” on true stories. However, I think if you’re going to portray a person (such as an average Joe), then you should at least be accurate… and if you can’t be accurate, then get their permission or the permission of the families. I don’t know… it’s a tough one. But this story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth that Hollywood gets to do whatever they want and aren’t held accountable to the rules everyone else has to follow.
It’s kind of scary… this decision basically means the Studios can make a movie on my life… called it “Based on a true Story”, and put in scenes where I kick kittens and molest children… and totally get away with it. Something is wrong with this picture.
