It seems like recently every show or movie is the dramatized retelling of someone’s life story. There’s “Inventing Anna”, “Pam and Tommy”, “The Dropout”, “The Girl from Plainville”, and many more. But what does it mean when someone’s life story is purchased for these shows?
When the rights to portray someone in film or television are purchased, it is actually a bundle of rights, including protection from suits based on defamation, invasion of privacy, and the right to publicity (Litwak, 2016). The purchaser might even need the subject’s participation or the participation of the family to have access to personal items. The parties must decide the scope of the rights provided (Id). Will the purchaser have rights to remakes, sequels, or merchandise? Will the subject’s partner, children, or friends be depicted? The buyer will want to ensure the agreement is as comprehensive as possible to allow for the greatest artistic control over their work.
With so many of these life stories based on criminal conduct, like the local story of Michelle Carter in “The Girl from Plainville”, an important aspect to consider is the Son of Sam Laws. These laws were named after serial killer David Berkowitz in 1977 in New York after he sold his exclusive story rights (Thomas, 2009). The purpose of the law was to prohibit criminals from profiting from writings or shows about their crimes. However, in Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board decided in 1991, the Supreme Court ruled the statute an unconstitutional content-based restriction (Id). Each state has their own version of the Son of Sam Laws that survive constitutional scrutiny in order to limit criminals from profiting off of the harm and trauma they’ve caused to victims.
When the rights to portray someone in film or television are purchased, it is actually a bundle of rights, including protection from suits based on defamation, invasion of privacy, and the right to publicity (Litwak, 2016). The purchaser might even need the subject’s participation or the participation of the family to have access to personal items. The parties must decide the scope of the rights provided (Id). Will the purchaser have rights to remakes, sequels, or merchandise? Will the subject’s partner, children, or friends be depicted? The buyer will want to ensure the agreement is as comprehensive as possible to allow for the greatest artistic control over their work.
With so many of these life stories based on criminal conduct, like the local story of Michelle Carter in “The Girl from Plainville”, an important aspect to consider is the Son of Sam Laws. These laws were named after serial killer David Berkowitz in 1977 in New York after he sold his exclusive story rights (Thomas, 2009). The purpose of the law was to prohibit criminals from profiting from writings or shows about their crimes. However, in Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board decided in 1991, the Supreme Court ruled the statute an unconstitutional content-based restriction (Id). Each state has their own version of the Son of Sam Laws that survive constitutional scrutiny in order to limit criminals from profiting off of the harm and trauma they’ve caused to victims.
Massachusetts attempted to implement their own version of this statute that diverted profits criminals made from their crimes to an escrow account reserved for the victims (2002). The court ruled this, too, would restrict free speech rights. While Massachusetts has repealed the Son of Sam Law, the state has not replaced it. What does that mean for Michelle Carter? Judge Moniz, the judge presiding over her case, ordered that she is not to profit from the publicity of her case for the next two years. Commonwealth v. Carter, 2019. This may have been a factor in the original contract between the producers of the show and Michelle.
What do you think is the best balance between the rights of a victim and those of their perpetrator?
What do you think is the best balance between the rights of a victim and those of their perpetrator?
-Taylor Mace
Litwak, Mark. Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry: From Negotiations to Final
Contracts. 4th ed., Silman-James Press, 2016.
Thomas, Sandra. Son of Sam Laws, The First Amendment Encyclopedia, 2009,
“California, Massachusetts Courts Nix Son of Sam Laws.” The Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press, The News Media and The Law, 2002,
https://www.rcfp.org/journals/the-news-media-and-the-law-spring-2002/california-
massachusetts-co
Commonwealth v. Carter, 481 Mass. 352, 115 N.E.3d 559 (2019).
No comments:
Post a Comment