I've got a few sketchs that involve celebrities and I want to show them on my friend's website and I was wondering if anyone knows if I'm legally allowed to refer to celebrities or use them as jokes? Or is there nothing they can do about it?
I need advice
clebrities will only sue you if you write something about them which is not true, its called libel. therefore you may want to think how a celebrity would act. for example i can say Tony Blair is a complete wanker who has none nothing positive for this country because it would be petty and detrimental to his reputation to take legal action. however if i said Prince C*****s takes it up the arse he may sue. Courts will also take into account the seriousness of the false allegation, e.g. the guy whos been in Coronation Street for 40 years sued because someone said he was boring. technically he won but he had to pay his own costs and was awarded £1 damages. If your friend's website has a small audience and is not easily found on a search engine i wouldn't worry about it. anyway its usually the publisher, i.e your friend, who gets sued as they usually have more money.
Quote: ajp29 @ November 23, 2006, 3:26 PMclebrities will only sue you if you write something about them which is not true, its called libel. therefore you may want to think how a celebrity would act. for example i can say Tony Blair is a complete wanker who has none nothing positive for this country because it would be petty and detrimental to his reputation to take legal action. however if i said Prince C*****s takes it up the arse he may sue. Courts will also take into account the seriousness of the false allegation, e.g. the guy whos been in Coronation Street for 40 years sued because someone said he was boring. technically he won but he had to pay his own costs and was awarded £1 damages. If your friend's website has a small audience and is not easily found on a search engine i wouldn't worry about it. anyway its usually the publisher, i.e your friend, who gets sued as they usually have more money.
cheers that was helpfull, alot of the material in the sketchs and jokes does cross a line, if you like, and some of it you could take to be true if you were a moron (or the courts), so i dunno whether to put them on it now or not.........any more help from anyone would be appreciated
My mate used run a website which had a forum on it. Eveyone who was involved could log onto the forum as themselves and chat away. However people used to create accounts and log on as celebrities. It was brilliant. No one knew who each celebrity really was. You'd have Mel Gibson arguing with Milli Vanilli, Fred West debating with Fred Elliot, Michael Barrymore upto all sorts of mischief, Noel Edmonds recounting tales from swap shop, and Arfur Scarhgill who was a right cnut.
Not entirely relevant, but it was a small website, and he never got sued. And a lot of people not only crossed the line, but got a running start and sprinted right over it.
Quote: Ginger Jesus @ November 23, 2006, 4:34 PMMy mate used run a website which had a forum on it. Eveyone who was involved could log onto the forum as themselves and chat away. However people used to create accounts and log on as celebrities. It was brilliant. No one knew who each celebrity really was. You'd have Mel Gibson arguing with Milli Vanilli, Fred West debating with Fred Elliot, Michael Barrymore upto all sorts of mischief, Noel Edmonds recounting tales from swap shop, and Arfur Scarhgill who was a right cnut.
Not entirely relevant, but it was a small website, and he never got sued. And a lot of people not only crossed the line, but got a running start and sprinted right over it.
yeah ummmmm i dunno are psuedo names on messages boards different though than saying something about a celebrity or having a quote about a celebrity that isnt true? cheers for the help anyway im swaying back and forth whether to put the material on or not
If it's topical the general rule used to be you had to have read it somewhere. So you could say 'The Sun says Prince Charles etc.' If you're just making a comment about a personality you'd have to say it's your opinion, or it's not your opinion as in...'I don't believe this for one minute but people are saying Prince Charles etc...' I hear Lord Lloyd-Webber sent letters out once saying that writers could say he was ugly if that's what they thought but anyone suggesting he stole his tunes would be sued. That seems very fair. Maybe you could try making these celebrities not real people like Borat or Phil Mitchell, that seems like it would be safe.
ajp has a point a celebrity can sue you for libel if you lie but lets think about it if your friend has a little website and possible only a few people are going to look at it. the chance of the celebrity seeing it are slim to none.
Quote: paul watson @ November 23, 2006, 5:24 PMajp has a point a celebrity can sue you for libel if you lie but lets think about it if your friend has a little website and possible only a few people are going to look at it. the chance of the celebrity seeing it are slim to none.
so are you saying its worth the risk (if there is any risk?) the only thing is i want as many people to see it as possible but your right i doubt the actual celebrity will see it, but if they are made aware of it i want to know if i would be in a trouble....
AJP's point about the publisher being the one that is sued isn't always the case, it is always the writer of the libel that is sued, never the publisher (unless the publisher maybe refused to name the author.) A recent example is the hideously feeble and inaccurate writer, Dan Brown, (sue me Dan, your opening sentence was an inaccuracy) he was sued - not his publisher. A writer has to a) arrange all copyrights or b) pay someone else to arrange all copyright. The publisher accepts the work on the implicit understanding this has been arranged. As the internet is a form of writing and publishing, I would think this probably means that a legal parallel operates.
As to suing you, they'd have to be real petty to sue people like us. If you report it as a conversation you overheard, it may weaken their position further as you're only reporting another person's slander. But i think it has to be clearly stated as X said blah.
First, they or a serious fan would have to read the article. Second, they'd have to consider how many have seen it. If it's a big youtube vid then they'll probably act.
Second you could always put a Yes No link to the articles stating they are for private consumption only, and that clicking Yes indicates their compliance with personal use.
Quote: SlagA @ November 23, 2006, 6:20 PMSecond you could always put a Yes No link to the articles stating they are for private consumption only, and that clicking Yes indicates their compliance with personal use.
cheers, so if i used that i could say or make anything up i wanted and get away with it?
Please, Please, Please do not listen to SlagA. i don't want to appear to be rude but he has little or no idea about the issues you wish to be addressed.
Firstly 'Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh had sued publishers Random House' (Guardian online) in that case. Dan Brown was a witness not a defendant. That case involved copyright infringement not an action for libel. In the majority of copyright cases the publishers are sued because they have more money than the authors.
Secondly you gain copyright as soon as you 'fixate' (write down) an 'original' (not nicked) idea onto paper, a computer, pissing in snow etc. therefore this post is my copyright. technically when you copy a post or part of it in a reply you are in breach of copyright. you don't have to 'a) arrange all copyrights or b) pay someone else to arrange all copyright' [quote from SlagA]. incidently since i have acknowledged SlagA's quote i am not in breach of copyright as you can copy copyrighted material for the purpose of criticism if you acknowledge the source.
Thirdly when you publish a written work (by publish i mean allow the public to see it) you can be sued for libel if you claim to report/present an allegation which is not true. Similarly if you say something to another person which is not true then you can be sued for slander. it has to be a false allegation, you are allowed to state facts e.g. Ricky Gervais won a BAFTA for The Office
Fourthly if you claim you are reporting other people's words or put a 'Yes No Link' a court will not find it to be an adequate partial or complete defence unless you actually are. Again if you publish a false allegation you can be sued for libel. the court will only consider how many people have seen the work when they are considering the amount of damages they will award to the calimant, after you've lost the case.
Fifthly 'celebrities' will sue for libel for two reasons.
1. to stop the written work being circulated to a wider audience and/or
2. to recieve damages i.e money.
i am sorry to go into so much detail but SlagA's comments where so wide of the mark that i felt i had to. above is the legal position in general terms. the only accurate statement i think SlagA stated was that 'they'd have to be real petty to sue people like us.' However remeber you are criticising celebrities so pettiness is not beyond them and all publicity is good publicity. i think if you really want to play it safe just don't name names. e.g. say American President instead George Bush or Pop Singer instead of Robbie Williams.
if you are really concerned you should consult a lawyer. the opinion in this post is not a legal one as i do not know the complete details of your situation so i'm speaking in general. it should also help the other writers who visit this site but again it is not proper legal advice, you should always talk to a fully qualified legal practioner if you want to know if your work is libel or if it infringes other people's work.
ajp29 you are looking into this way to deep, dying to live If you want to post a sketch that calls tony blair a tosser go for it, no offence but I doubt that thousands of people will see and think Libel!!! If you really went to town and called him a peado or something then you probably get in some trouble. But then you have to think would he really bother sueing one person on one website saying that? probably not so Id just post your sketch and enjoy the feedback.
ajp29 I study law and I understood what you had to say but your going into way to much detail and there is no need for it yes, SlagA was a little off the mark... and? copyright is very complicated so leave it to rest.
paul, i was simply explaining the facts, i stated in my original post that it was fine to call tony blair a wanker. the detail was needed because people were giving bad advice, including you, and if you study law you should know that. copyright is not complicated, neither is libel or law for that matter.
dyingtolive simply wanted to know if he was 'legally allowed to refer to celebrities or use them as jokes?' so i told him/her. the detail was for the benefit of those who haven't studied law, which apparently does not include you. SlagA did not realise you gain copyright as soon as you write down an original idea so that detail was certainly needed.
i also addressed your point about why a celebrity would sue but as soon as there is a libel they can so what you 'think' they will do does not matter. it does not take 'thousands of people' to sue for libel, it takes one. if you went to town and called him a paedo it would be slander not libel.
the detail is also based on law not opinion, unlike your post, therefore i think you should leave it to rest and if you study or have studied law you may want to look at your notes/text books again.
P.S. if anyone else wants to undermine my posts could they base their posts on law not their opinion. one of the most disastrous phrases in legal history has been 'i don't think they will sue...' because the little guy always gets screwed by the big guy who has lots of money. i just don't want to see the little guy, especially a comedy writer, get screwed by the big guy. paul obviously does.
Aren't you glad you asked this question dyingtolive?
I say do it. If they sue you, they sue you. So what? It could turn out to be the best publicity you'll ever have.
Bankruptcy might be sh!t, but at least you'll have no credit card debts.
ajp29 I DO study law and copyright law IS complicated there are alot of grey areas and IF you knew about law you would know court battles over copyright law can last years, but hey its so easy everyone understands it!
I was merely having a jab at you because you had ago at slagA who gave some wrong information he didn't mean to, I actually think this is the first time he has been wrong because he's given some dam good advice in the past so give it a rest and find someone else to dig at on a forum.
I have comedy writing to do not agrueing.