Yes, I know, the irony.
I would like to write a screenplay about a real ( historical) person. I am using a biography about that person for research, but obviously most scenes will be made up by me.
Is that OK? Do I need to get some kind of permission before sending it to anyone?
Usually fine.
Ideally there's more than one biog of this person and you won't be lifting sections from the book so the author can't get you - who will have got their info from somewhere else, remember.
And probably a good idea to go to more than one source yourself.
Some times producers get a bit wary if the thing is defamatory and there is a litigious surviving family estate knocking around - they don't have much of a leg to stand on but they can make life difficult.
Look up random House v Random house - The holy blood and the holy grail -The Da Vici Code. To see how far you can get away with using the architectural structure of research to form your own narrative!I guess the issue is how long ago the deceased lived I guess. You don't need permission to write about anybody, alive or dead, but I guess as Lazzard says if immediate family are still alive then be wary of litigation if 'defamatory' etc.
I'm looking forward to Jennie's "Behind the blonde wig - the Jimmy Savile story."
Dang it, Beaks - you've given it away!
I'm going to do a tell-all with the Daily Mail.
Anyway, thanks team.
They may have been more to the case than this, but didn't David Baddiel get successfully sued for using someones name in one of his novels many years ago?
Quote: Marc P @ 11th May 2014, 11:09 AM BSTLook up random House v Random house - The holy blood and the holy grail -The Da Vici Code. To see how far you can get away with using the architectural structure of research to form your own narrative!I guess the issue is how long ago the deceased lived I guess. You don't need permission to write about anybody, alive or dead, but I guess as Lazzard says if immediate family are still alive then be wary of litigation if 'defamatory' etc.
Wasn't that the one where the "Holy Blood" writers got in a bit of a pickle because the only way their case would have stood up was if their book was a 'fiction' (which it was!!) but they had purported it to be a work of academic research and were thus lumbered?
Sort of. The narrative plot of the film followed the narrative plot of the research I think. Still Random House suing Random House is kind of odd.
It's quite a random thing to do,
I see what you did there!
Whats the title of Sherlock's shortest story, where he walks in on someone murdering Mrs Hudson
Quote: Marc P @ 12th May 2014, 1:23 PM BSTI see what you did there Watson!
It's all in the title innit.
Obviously I had to go on Westlaw and access the case report...
Baigent v Random House Group Ltd
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
28 March 2007
Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2007] EWCA Civ 247; [2008] E.M.L.R. 7; [2007] F.S.R. 24; (2007) 104(15) L.S.G. 21; Official Transcript
Case Digest
Subject: Intellectual property Other related subjects: Media and entertainment
Keywords: Books; Copying; Copyright; Infringement; Literary works; Substantial part
Summary: A judge had not been wrong in concluding that there was no central theme in a book, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", sufficient to qualify as a substantial part of the literary work, and that what had been taken from that book by the author of another book, "The Da Vinci Code", amounted to generalised propositions at too high a level of abstraction to qualify for copyright protection because it was not the product of the application of skill and labour by the authors of the former book in the creation of their work.
Abstract: The appellant authors (B) appealed against a decision [2006] EWHC (Ch) 719 [2006] E.M.L.R. 16 that the novel, "The Da Vinci Code" (DVC), published by the respondent company (R), did not infringe their copyright in their book, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (HBHG), an original literary work in which copyright subsisted. HBHG was presented as a non-fictional book propounding the theory that the bloodline of Jesus had not only survived but had merged with the Merovingian bloodline around the fifth century. The DVC was a thriller that also concerned Jesus' bloodline. Its author (D) and D's wife had spent time conducting research before D had started writing the DVC. D acknowledged that he had used the HBHG at some stage. B maintained that D had used the central theme of the HBHG as the basis for the DVC and had copied a substantial part of the HBHG. The judge held that, although there were several central theme elements in the HBHG, the latter had no genuine central theme, and, to the extent that a central theme was there and was copied, it was no more than "an expression of a number of facts and ideas at a very general level" and so was not capable of copyright protection; alternatively, it did not amount to a substantial part of the HBHG. B submitted that there was a central theme in the HBHG and that the copyright in the HBHG had been infringed by substantially copying the central theme.
Appeal dismissed. As the judge had found, D had had access to the HBHG at the time when he had written parts of the DVC, and had used the HBHG at that stage, basing relevant parts of the DVC on material within it. There was relevant material in HBHG that was also to be found in DVC, namely, several central theme elements. Nevertheless, the judge had been correct to conclude that what D had taken from HBHG amounted to generalised propositions at too high a level of abstraction to qualify for copyright protection, because it was not the product of the application of skill and labour by the authors of HBHG in the creation of their literary work. It lay on the wrong side of the line between ideas and their expression. In any event, although the relevant central theme elements were to be found in both books, B's claim depended on showing that the central theme propounded was a central theme of HBHG sufficient to qualify as a substantial part of the work, albeit as a combination of features obtained by abstraction, Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (t/a Washington DC) [2000] 1 W.L.R. 2416 considered. The judge had been entitled to hold that the central theme was not a theme of HBHG at all, but was no more than a selection of features of HBHG that had been collated for forensic purposes rather than having emerged from a fair reading of the book as a whole. Further, the judge had been entitled to reject B's contention that the central theme was a substantial part of the HBHG, and it was not necessary for him to provide any further explanation for his conclusion that, whatever elements, if any, were copied from HBHG, they did not amount to a substantial part of it.
So that clears it up then!
These paragraphs from the judgment are quite interesting:
Mr Brown is a fiction writer. As a device to writing fiction he is perfectly entitled to dress up factual scenarios to give an illusion that supports his fiction. He is not (contrary to the complaints of the Claimants) going into deep and detailed research for these factual matters. Indeed as he said in his evidence that would be counterproductive; he wishes to create "grey" areas not black and white. He simply needs therefore a mystery and a series of unanswered questions. He can do that without deep research and that he has done. As he has taken matters at a general and low level of abstraction and he has only taken ideas and facts without any of the
architecture (if any) he has done nothing wrong. It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way DVC has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement
of copyright. I accept that if that was allowed to happen it would have a serious impact on writing. This case whatever its result would not have that impact in my view. However cases can be used for improper purposes.
It was said in evidence that there is at least one book in every person. The skill of the great is always (in whatever area is being talked about) in making it all seem very easy.
Ain't that the truth!
It ain't the truth DVC is a dreadful book, not 'great' at all.
Ahh, but nowhere does he call DVC great. He keeps his observations general.
He does praise the other book, which he says he has read over 20 times since publication.
Maybe he is being diplomatic because he was finding for Brown, or maybe he is not keen. Who knows.
Hi everyone! Hope you're all doing well!
I have the same (not entirely)question 
Is there any institution in London which could give me legal advice on Screenwriting/Filmmaking? I have a lot of questions to ask and I think it would be best to talk to an actual person instead of reading online. I already checked the BBC website and some other places for info but that didn't really help much.
Thanks in advance!