Replies

One of the fundamental rules of copyright law is that "facts cannot be copyrighted."

Pardon me for being a dumb @ss, but if that's the case then what movie or television producer in his right mind would ever pay a nickel for "the rights" to a story like this?

Because they get the cooperation of the principal. Because they eliminate the risk of nuisance lawsuits from people who don't understand that facts cannot be copyrighted. Those suits can be expensive to get rid of, even though they are completely meritless. Both the plaintiffs and defendants lawyers will spend a ton of time and clients' money. The plaintiff won't get a dime. You can scoff if you want, but that's the law.

There is also the risk that the moviemakers might present something as fact that isn't fact, and might open themselves up to a libel or "false light" suit. But, in this case, all the moviemaker will have to do is listen to the court testimony. Every word of it can be reproduced without the permission of the principals. It is a public record.

Again, I don't know what I would do in the Smart's situation. I'm sure they wish that all the media would just pack up, go home, and let them try to get Elizabeth back to normal. I certainly would, in their shoes. They can't make that happen. They now have to decide what to do about the media interest.