In watching the movie "The Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts, One scene has dialog that says "well John Hinckley shot President Reagan". That statement in dialog was correct. It told the actual truth about what John Hinckley did. Now, forgetting about any laws that prevent prisoners from proffiting etc etc, In speaking of someone historically, that is alive, is there a copyright issue using the persons name?

Tough question, thansk for any help.
Donny

Go watch CNN for about 15 minutes, and then ask yourself the same question.

Just fun above.

A very good friend of mine is within the judiciary, and he gnashes his teeth when he hears of over zealous attacks on a person's freedom of expression or freedom of speech. I strongly agree with him.
To your query, I think that only the most obnoxious stakeholders would bring forth such an action against such a fundamental part of our collective existance.
Up here in Canada, we have become known for our tolerence and liberalism. Notwithstanding our financial policy, but that is another matter. Your question is excellent, and one that I am sure is tested regularly in many jurisdictions.
I just hope not here any time soon.

No.

A person's name is not a creative work, nor is it fixed to a tangible medium. In fact, the person didn't even create their name, their parents did!

Referring to historical events is fine. Telling a person's personal history is where you may get in to trouble. Fine line... best to get the person's release to tell their life story.

Do you think John Hinckley was paid anything / signed a release? Again removing any laws about prisoners proffiting from their crime. This was a fiction production created for the entertainment industry and profit, we must remember News is exempt from most photo and information copyright.

As Dan indicated, names cannot be protected by copyright. There are, however, other considerations. One is right-of-publicity -- laws in many jurisdictions preclude the commercial appropriation of name and/or likeness. In California, the statute even extends to dead celebrities. The other is defamation. For this reason, it is usually a good idea to get rights from a person.

Would that be necessary in this case? The statement is a true fact of history. I can see getting in trouble if the statement was not positively proven, perhaps even in the case of Oswald? Of course there you have a government commission stating it is true.

but this is not just a name, it is instantly attatched to a single individual, I would think it is not like using Bob Smith, that could be anybody, but "John Hinckley who shot President Reagan" is a distinct individual, pointing to only one person on earth.

Especially when you're talking about historic events or famous people, as long as you're not being defamatory, using their image, or taking anyone's original expression, you are usually safe. There are unauthorized biographies all the time. Public figures have a fairly low level of privacy protection unless outright falsehood is involved (remember the movie the People v. Larry Flint, about the Hustler v. Falwell case?)

If you stand to make a lot of money, you could attract attention theoretically, in which case you might have trouble on your hands (even if nothing more than a nuisance). So if a lot of money is at stake always get specific legal advice because there are always variables.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense, The grocery store rack mags only seem to get in trouble when they completely falsify a story. The statement in the movie was placed as a fact of history, "John Hinckley shot President Reagan", I am very comfortable with that. I believe ESPN is trying to come out with a Dale Earnhardt movie without cooperation of the family.


Now, Not to stir the pot, that is not my attempt. This topic actually involves work in process for me. What about using Governments, all ficticious names. Rambo did it, Many movies about the presidency did it. Let say you wanted to create a plot about an overseas government coverup, say neverneverland, I have never heard of a government suit??

Not sure what you're talking about actually. :) Do you mean a movie about a corrupt fictional government? Why do you think there'd be any problem at all?

Anyway seriously governments can't sue you for defamation, at least not in the US. The US also cannot claim copyright on any original government works (though I believe they can own copyrights on works created by others - Paul can correct me if I'm wrong).

So making up stories about governments, yeah that's pretty much the epitome of first amendment protection, at least for dramatic purposes anyway.

Follow the money! lol.. So in this regard, the government is working for the money lenders and banks, the IMF, the FEDS, etc., all private companies :) Never saw a good documentary on that> following the money chain way up; you know way past Bill Gates into bigboy/Rothchild territory...bah on the other hand best to live a longer life 'cause doing a project like that would shorten it! No on camera interviews there just black window tint.

This discussion needs to stay on topic. If you're wondering where your posts went, please refer to the DV Info FAQ and the prohibition of discussions about politics and religion. Thank you for your cooperation

I should not have used a ficticious government in my discussion because in my work it will not be ficticious. I want to use an actual overseas government / nation.

And thanks everyone for their input, It's amazing how much of ones thought process has to grind away at liability.

Just read a couple Clancy books, or the Last Jihad, and you'll see that you can make up pretty much whatever you want about governments or countries. They don't have privacy rights.

Thanks very much for everyones help.

Sincerely,
Donny

Oh well, we can always go as far as the "government" would let us.

"Just read a couple Clancy books, or the Last Jihad, and you'll see that you can make up pretty much whatever you want about governments or countries. They don't have privacy rights."

True that governments don't have privacy rights, but if you publish fictions about specific government members as facts, you might provoke legal action against you. Members of Parliament and scions of ruling families don't liked to be libeled any more than the rest of us.

This might be less of an issue in the United States than it is in Britain, where libel law puts the burden of proof on the defendant to convince the court of the truth of every alledgedly libelous assertion printed. (UK Random House division Secker and Warburg recently withdrew from British publication the Craig Unger exposé House of Bush, House of Saud because of likelihood of being sued by Saudis in British court, a financially draining proposition regardless of the outcome of such a case.)

Well, that is why the US has the 1st Amendment to the Constitution -- Freedom of Press/Speech.

In fact, back before "some people" emmigrated to this country and changes things forever, politicians here were said to set up presses simply to libel one another -- free exchange of ideas and information, be they truth or less so. The "sanity check" is not with the courts (controlled by those in power), but with each reader and voting citizen, whether he choose to believe what is published or not.

In my "extensive" international travels, I find that people in other countries like England and those in the Commonwealth are more "technically" educated, but people in the US are more "street-smart" educated, because we are often forced to made decisions from a very young age about people matters ourselves, less so than having "1 + 1 = 2" shoved down our throats.

No intent to criticise one system or the other, just discussing the merits of libel laws in different countries affecting societies.

Law, you might be interested in this discussion that I just posted:

Two reporters have their tapes erased by security at Justice Scalia speech (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24354).

Certainly individuals have privacy rights. But even then the first amendment protects people from criticizing them (and it would protect you, even against foreign leaders, for speech you make in America - it wouldn't, of course, protect you from getting sued overseas if jurisdiction were established) or even, in some cases, writing fictional stories involving them.

In the case of outright falsehood, there are parody defenses as well and, again, the seminal case is Hustler v. Falwell. So, for instance, we can have a book that specifically talks about Saddam Hussein building a nuclear weapon and attempting to launch it at New York, and there's nothing he could do about it since it's clearly fiction. If the New York Times, however, falsely reported that Saddam was planning to nuke NY with no evidence, theoretically he could have a libel claim (of course then he'd have to prove his reputation was damaged, and that would be pretty hard for him). But I could write fictional stories about Saddam and pretty much make them as disgusting as I want. I mean, Hustler had a story about Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse. It doesn't get much worse than that, and the Supreme Court said it was protected speech.

Anyone remember the movie Contact? They actually used footage of President Clinton in scenes that he clearly was never involved in. But he has no right to privacy in that context because of his public stature. Even if they had portrayed him in a bad light, I don't think he'd have a case because of Hustler, unless it was intended to convey fact and truth and not merely fiction.

Governments, societies, communities, etc. don't have privacy or publicity rights. Only individuals and private entities do. And the more public the individual, the less protection he gets.