Entertainment Law Question #1?

I have created this hypothetical situation, in which there may be more than one answer. What do you think the answer is?


Charles Van Doren was a central figure in the quiz show scandal of the 1950's because he was one of the best liked and most successful contestants on the show "21", and because he lied to the public and a grand jury by falsely denying that he had been given answers in advance, Eventually, at a Congressional hearing, Van Doren admitted that he had lied; therefore he was fired by Columbia University (where he had been teaching English). He dropped out of the public eye completely, and he spent the rest of his career working as an editor for Encyclopedia Britannica. A Robert Redford directed movie, "Quiz Show", was essentially a dramatization of Van Doren's story.

If the producers of "Quiz Show" had asked you whether Charles Van Doren's consent had to be obtained before the movie was released, what would you have advised? Why?

Here is what I think. Thanks for all of your answers!

I would tell the producers that obtaining Van Doren鈥檚 consent is not required, but I would suggest that they still obtain his consent in order to prevent a lawsuit, which might come later if facts become misrepresented. His consent would not be technically required because 鈥淨uiz Show鈥?dramatizes a story that is a matter of public record. Van Doren was a public figure whose story (the actual 鈥?1鈥?shows themselves, the scandal, and the court hearings) was out for the public to peruse in the 1950鈥檚. If they stuck exactly to the facts of the actual scandal and gave a truthful account, then Van Doren鈥檚 consent would not be required. However, if the producers of the movie made any untrue additions, specifically ones that would portray Van Doren in a not-so-attractive light, then that would become grounds for Van Doren to sue for defamation of character.

Because of the scandal, and the public nature of the subsequent hearings, Mr. Van Doren could be considered a public figure. While a limited amount of license could be exercised with the facts pertaining to his involvement would be, legally, "safe ground," I would advise the producers to make sure of the facts regarding Mr. Van Doren's involvement.

Any attempt at painting his character as being any less sympathetic, or any more villianess than the really was could be grounds for liebel.

no, because much of the information used in the film was a matter of public record.

If they were going to use his name, or likeness (such as any possible media footage of his testifying before congress, or appearance on the show) then yes, I would recommend getting his consent. Otherwise, the writers could make it fictional enough so as to keep to a minimum any resemblance to that situation.

Not necessary. The congressional and court records are open to the public and subject to review and dessimination by media sources ( ie... "The Onion Fields" author did not have the permission of the perpetrators to publish his account of the crime...)
I rest my Case.

I know the woman who was girl friend to Z movie director Ed Wood (Dolores Fuller, now Dolores Chamberlin) and she was portrayed in the movie, ED WOOD, A Tim Burton Film, And they didn't get her permission. She was a singer and songwriter, who wrote songs for Elvis Presley and is a member of BMI. She sued, she won. They paid her.

Next case!