what are the Pros and Cons of using real celebrity names in stories?
what are the Pros and Cons of using real celebrity names in stories?
It's a pro if you have readers who like or hate a celebrity (fan fiction). It's a pro because you don't have to spend the time describing the character.
It's a con because you can be sued.
It's a pro if you have readers who like or hate a celebrity (fan fiction)
It could be a con, too.
If really I like the celebrity, I may hate you and your story if she suffers in your story or does willingly things I find disgusting.
E.g. I've read a few Castle fanfic stories. In one story Alexis Castle was fucking her father, in another she got gang-banged and loved it. This didn't faze me, but I hated the story where Kate Beckett got kidnapped and tortured. I never read another story featuring Kate Beckett.
Back then I searched for fanfic featuring the actress Stana KatiΔ but found only Castle series fanfic.
HM.
Alexis Castle was fucking ... Kate Beckett
Now that would be a good one. I have spousal permission if I ever got a chance with Stana Katic or Alexandra Daddario.
If really I like the celebrity, I may hate you and your story if she suffers in your story or does willingly things I find disgusting.
Even aside from the sex aspect, there's the simple fact that:
a) A lot of people have trouble differentiating between actor personality and character personality, and
b) It can be very difficult to get a specific personality right, especially when trying to be flexible in other story aspects.
This is one of the big problems in fanfiction: characters who don't act anything like their original version. It's often even worse with celeb fiction. Since most people don't know the celeb's true personality, everyone has a different opinion of what it is.
Using the Castle example, Alexis and Richard have a semi-flirtatious relationship in the show, so while incest isn't really in character I can see how it could do be written in character. Alexis and Kate, however, would be pretty hard to do without completely mangling Kate's character. She'd see it as morally questionable at best.
It's worth mentioning that the laws around using fictional characters are very different from those around using real people.
that the laws around using fictional characters are very different from those around using real people
There are a few cases were the actor "is" indistinguishable from the fictional character.
e.g. in the long running German weekly soap LindenstraΓe (1985β2020) the actress Marie-Luise Marjan was Helga "Mutter" Beimer. She was present in all 1758 episodes. Most people she met didn't know her 'real' name but recognized her as "Mutter Beimer".
If someone would have used her fictional name Beimer this could have created problems for the real person.
HM.
I agree, and you might have a case there.
Actually, the protections are, in general, much stronger around characters. While there are some formal and informal exceptions, you'd generally be on much better legal ground writing a story in which George Lucas is a character than one where Luke Skywalker is a character.
Or, at least, that's my 'I am not a lawyer' impression of the relevant laws and cases.
Or, at least, that's my 'I am not a lawyer' impression of the relevant laws and cases.
You are correct, and not just because of the relevant laws and cases.
Lucas is semi-retired. He sold his company along with his big name films to Disney.
Disney has a reputation for being very litigious and protective of their copyrights and trademarks in general and in particular for bullying fan-fiction authors with outright frivolous claims.
They get away with it because they have deep pockets and very few people have been willing to go to trial against them.
True, and perhaps it was the wrong example (because of Disney).
In legal terms (again, I Am Not A Lawyer), you'd be better off featuring J. R. Rowling in a story, not Harry Potter, or featuring Stephen King, not Randall Flagg, or vs .
Protections around for-profit derivative works using fictional characters are much more significant than protections for real persons. Fan-fiction is a possibly exemption, but there's not enough case law out there to be certain.
Yes, either could sue. And, yes, don't cross Disney.
You could instead use a look-alike. The con of either a real celebrity or a look-alike is that I have more than once encountered such names and had no idea who it was or how he/she looked like.
If you portray a celebrity in a poor light, I believe they could sue you.
Using celebrities dates the story. And a celebrity's image can change drastically in a short period of time (eg Hanoi Jane, 'me too' offenders).
Using celebrities drags what could be an unwelcome piece of real life into a story. A saccharine romance would be less fairy-taleish with flesh and blood characters involved.
Your idea of a celebrity might be someone who's completely unknown in some regions/cultures.
AJ
Using celebrities dates the story.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a story set in a definite time period.
In point of fact, I find the opposite, stories written to an indefinite and eternal now, to be rather annoying.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a story set in a definite time period.
Indeed. But IMO most stories on SOL appear to be set in 'the present', which is only possible if you don't use technology or celebrities that tie it to a certain date.
I guess most SOL stories annoy you :-(
AJ
But IMO most stories on SOL appear to be set in 'the present',
That would not describe most of the ones I've read on SOL.
ETA: There is a difference between a story that has a definite time frame but doesn't state it explicitly and a story whose author went out of his way to avoid leaving the reader with even the smallest clue about when the story takes place.
The latter is what annoys me.
In my experience, the former would describe most of the stories on SOL.
In my experience, the former would describe most of the stories on SOL.
A quick scan of the New Stories list suggests extremely few have a definite timeline. Most are quite short and describe a sexual encounter or experience that could have occurred yesterday.
To be honest, I rarely read those unless there's something in the story description that attracts my attention. I prefer longer stories with good characterisation that start slow and accelerate to their climax.
AJ
New Stories list suggests extremely few have a definite timeline.
I'm talking about a time frame, a general placement of when the story takes place, not a timeline of the events in the story.
It doesn't have to be specific. It doesn't even have to be very precise.
Most are quite short and describe a sexual encounter or experience that could have occurred yesterday.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them have some small clues that would place them in a particular time frame, even if that time frame is fairly broad. Especially after enough change has built up in the real world vs when they were written.
To be honest, I rarely read those unless there's something in the story description that attracts my attention.
It's the same for me. And it's almost impossible to write a decent longer story without including any elements that will put a time frame on the story.
I'm talking about a time frame, a general placement of when the story takes place, not a timeline of the events in the story.
So was I. Timeframe is a better word.
AJ
And it's almost impossible to write a decent longer story without including any elements that will put a time frame on the story.
Even the language can be a giveaway. Take the word 'omnishambles'. Came and went within a year.
AJ
Even the language can be a giveaway.
Like the Valley Girl lingo.
But I'm confused. Most stories/novels don't specify a specific time period. The author simply writes it based on the current world. Why are so many here saying that's wrong and they won't read those stories?
IMO most stories on SOL appear to be set in 'the present'
This can be done with ease and leave the story open for being read as the present of 1990 or 2020 if the author takes care to not date it. Some such stories stand the test of time, and some don't.
IMHO a well written story is a well written story and will stand the test of time regardless of if it's dated or not dated. Mind you, a bad written story won't stand the test of time regardless of being dated or not dated. Dating a story should be a null factor unless it's part of the plot development.
using real celebrity names in stories?
I have blatantly stated that A True History takes place on an alternate Earth and included the following disclaimer:
NOTE: Any names and/or other similarities between people, living, dead, or fictional are purely coincidental (maybe)
If someone wants to sue you, they can. Whether it's successful or not is another matter.
Mine is a little different, but similar:
This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, organizations, places, events, and incidents are either products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. This includes real people who enter the story (and some will). The universe Steve and Angie and friends live in is not our universe, and those people might be very different in that universe.
I agree - if someone wants to sue me, they will. I think the odds are very, very low, though. The threshold for a win is often really high (look into the lawsuit over 'A Perfect Storm', for instance - a real, non-famous person who was arguably portrayed in a fairly negative light, for a mass audience, and they still lost).
I imagine the real people in both stories have much better things to do than to claim that their portrayal in a story that's blatantly not our reality is harming them.
If someone wants to sue you, they can. Whether it's successful or not is another matter.
Technically true, but keep in mind that even a minor celeb probably has a lot more money to spend on lawyers than the average SOL author. Lawsuits are expensive.
Technically true, but keep in mind that even a minor celeb probably has a lot more money to spend on lawyers than the average SOL author. Lawsuits are expensive.
The flip side of that is that lawsuits are expensive :) Again, looking at cases where the story was a fictionalized account of real-world event using the names of real people and sometimes casting them in a bad light still not being found liable, most minor celebrities are unlikely to spend money harassing an author who likely has very shallow pockets.
Yes, it's a risk - it's absolutely a risk. However, the paucity of lawsuits involving fiction which references real people suggests that it's not something celebrities major or minor are currently obsessing over.
what are the Pros and Cons of using real celebrity names in stories?
Mostly, unless it is simply a non-sexual cameo I see nothing wrong with it. I have done it myself.
But in most, it is found in really boring kink fetish stories, with a "Mary Sue" involved representing the author. I got bored of them over 2 decades ago, and they certainly have not gotten any better.
Way back in the day, there was a guy on ASSTR that wrote like 100 of them, each involving knocking up a different celebrity.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think people are overstating the risk of getting sued. As long as it's obviously a fiction I expect it falls under the parody fair-use rules (in the US anyway). And I believe people in the public eye have to demonstrate actual malice. (That said, if you annoy somebody who can outspend you on lawyers 1000 to 1... I mean, don't mess with Disney!)
I'm not a lawyer, but I think people are overstating the risk of getting sued.
The risk is quite low for authors on SOL. That's mostly because of obscurity. The celebrity used in story is unlikely to ever find out the story exists.
That said, the risk is non-zero.
Nobody quantified the risk of getting sued so it's kind of hard to see how it's being overstated.
As long as it's obviously a fiction I expect it falls under the parody fair-use rules (in the US anyway).
Parody and fair-use are defenses against copyright infringement claims, but that wouldn't be the issue in a suit brought by a celebrity over the use of their name in a work of fiction.
And I believe people in the public eye have to demonstrate actual malice.
That's only for defamation, which is a likely basis for the kind of suit we are talking about.
However:
1. It's public figures, not being in the public eye. Not every one in the public eye is a public figure for purposes of defamation law.
https://www.chicagobusinesslawfirm.com/public-figures-vs-private-figures-which-one-are-you.html
The Supreme Court has defined public figures as those who hold government office and those who have achieved a role of special prominence in the affairs of society by reason of notoriety of their achievements or vigor and success with which they seek public's attention. Because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to speech concerning public figures, the Supreme Court's definition of a public figure, rather than state law, controls the determination of whether a plaintiff is a "public figure" for purposes of defamation.
Public figures are mostly politicians and beyond that, mostly prominent political activists. A celebrity like an actor may or may not qualify.
2. Actual malice in a defamation law context does not mean what most lay people think it means.
https://www.chicagobusinesslawfirm.com/what-is-the-actual-malice-standard-and-why-does-it-matter.html
The Supreme Court has defined actual malice as actual knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard for the truth. The Supreme Court has clarified that reckless disregard means subjective evidence that the defendant entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement and cannot be established by proof of a mere failure to research a statement before making it.
Aside from defamation an author using a celebrity figure (the real person not one of their roles) in a story could be sued for violating the celebrities rights of publicity.
While US federal law does not recognize rights of publicity, about 30 of the 50 US states do so under state law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#U.S._states_that_recognize_rights_of_publicity
Whether being fiction, parody, or satire are defenses against a right of publicity suit will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
However, the other thing you need to think about is that people filing meritless lawsuits is not as rare as you likely think it is.
If you do get sued, even if the suit is completely meritless, it will cost you a great deal of money to make the lawsuit go away.
Cons of using real celebrity names in stories?
being stalked by nutcases who don't like how you treated their favourite celeb would be the biggest problem. Being sued by the celeb could occur, but many will ignore any bad publicity it gets while some would welcome the publicity the case gets.
So, Merlin just posted an ending to his long-unfinished story Pace Line. The original story, posted gradually from 2007β2010, involved puffing up the MC's bike-racing credentials by making Lance Armstrong his friend, mentor, and former team leader.
And then the doping scandal broke, and it was revealed that big hero Lance Armstrong, whose aura Merlin's character was basking in, was actually a big cheater, and his presence in Merlin's story suddenly had exactly the opposite of the intended effect.
actually a big cheater
Well, yes and no. Yes, in that he had testosterone in his system. No, in that, speaking from experience, once you've had testicular cancer, your testosterone level is NEVER what it was prior to the orchiectomy.
I had a hell of a time getting insurance to pay for my testosterone treatments, because they were convinced it was for male enhancement. They finally did, but it was like they didn't understand that if you're either a one-bagger or a flat-bagger that you need that replacement.
19 SOL stories contain "Vladimir Putin". I wonder whether any of the authors regret that choice.
In a bizarre coincidence, 19 SOL stories contain "Prince Andrew".
AJ
19 SOL stories contain "Vladimir Putin". I wonder whether any of the authors regret that choice.
As a good guy or a bad guy? That would make a significant difference in whether or not the author has cause for regret.
From the brief extracts provided by Advanced Search, it's almost impossible to tell. In fact, some extracts don't even show the string. But I seem to recall Michael Loucks's epic portraying a younger Putin in a favourable manner. And when he first came to power, that was the impression he gave - it's only recently he's become full-blown paranoid delusional about those he considers to be neo-Nazis, despite being one himself.
AJ
But I seem to recall Michael Loucks's epic portraying a younger Putin in a favourable manner. And when he first came to power, that was the impression he gave
That seems kind of delusional. Putin is ex-KGB.
it's only recently he's become full-blown paranoid delusional about those he considers to be neo-Nazis, despite being one himself.
He's not a neo-Nazis, he's a neo-communist. He's pretty much said he wants to recreate the USSR.
That seems kind of delusional. Putin is ex-KGB.
Despite that, when he first took over he gave the impression of being a reformist, a Yeltsin junior.
He's not a neo-Nazis, he's a neo-communist. He's pretty much said he wants to recreate the USSR.
He might claim to be a communist but he's of the 'some are more equal than others' ilk. I can see little difference between his recent policies and those of Adolf Hitler.
AJ
when he first took over he gave the impression of being a reformist, a Yeltsin junior
I believe it was for show. To move up.
I believe Putin was stationed in East Berlin when the wall came down. He called his superiors in the KGB for help. They ignored him. That had a forever lasting effect on him. His goal is to rebuild the glory of Russia.
My father was born in Kiev (or however they spell it now) and his family fled to the U.S. during the Russian Revolution. He always said he was Russian because back then it was Russia.
Chose between rushing and stalling, or Russian and Stalin.
Stalin wasn't a Russian.
"Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was a Georgian revolutionary and Soviet political and military leader who governed the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1953. Wikipedia
Born: Gori, Georgia
Died: March 5, 1953, Kuntsevo Dacha"
He wasn't from the state in the USA named for an English King (George).
Putin has delusion of becoming a "Neo Tzar" of All the Russias!
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that you are correct about Putin's ambitions, given the position he already holds in the Russian government, I wouldn't bet on it being delusional.
The Russian - Ukraine conflict has been building since the end of the USSR.
What we call Ukraine today was an artificial construct of a number of smaller entities merged together into on administrative unit by the Czar back in the 19th century. When the USSR came into being they maintained the one regional administrative centre, despite the diverse ethnic and local government units within it. That didn't matter due to them all being part of the same nation, the USSR.
When the USSR broke up in the Ukraine there existed the same issue that happened in Virginia when it seceded as part wanted out and part didn't want out. The Western Ukraine group wanted out and self rule while the Eastern Ukraine group wanted to stay as part of Russia as they were more closely linked to Russia as an ethnic heritage than the western group.
However, the Western Ukraine government screamed for the right to self-determination while refusing such rights to the Easter Ukraine group which include Crimea at that time. Since then the East Ukraine group have been screaming for self-determination rights and been rebelling against the Western Ukraine government, even while they rebelled against the Russian government.
If the Western Ukraine government had let the Eastern Ukraine rebels go and return to be part of Russia the way they want to be the war there would've ended years ago and they would never have given Putin, or anyone else, a justification to invade the Ukraine.
Thus we have a situation of two power hungry groups lead by evil people raging a war in the Ukraine. No good will come of this, regardless of what happens or who wins.
If the Western Ukraine government had let the Eastern Ukraine rebels go and return to be part of Russia the way they want to be the war there would've ended years ago and they would never have given Putin, or anyone else, a justification to invade the Ukraine.
I don't think that's true. Even if that happened, Putin would still throw a fit if Western Ukraine wanted to join NATO.
Putin wants to rebuild the USSR, bring all the old Warsaw Pact countries back under Russia's thumb.
Even if Western Ukraine had let the eastern part go, even if Ukraine was uninterested in joining NATO, he would still find a reason to invade.
Putin would still throw a fit if Western Ukraine wanted to join NATO.
True, although I think it's a stretch to justify a middle European country joining NATO. However, should Ukraine get approval to join NATO, I don't think they could afford to pay all the costs of being a member they're supposed to pay.
Still, if they'd let the DonBas people go their own way years ago Putin would have lost any excuse to invade and it would've been harder for him to organise.
I think it's a stretch to justify a middle European country joining NATO
Turkey is a member. More countries joining makes the world a slightly safer place.
They should have allowed Eastern Ukrainians a referendum but that would only have delayed matters. DS is right, Putin has admitted he wants to rebuild the Soviet Union.
AJ
I don't think that's true. Even if that happened, Putin would still throw a fit if Western Ukraine wanted to join NATO.
Just as the US did when the USSR wanted to stage missiles in Cuba.
The historic region of Ukraine used to cover most of European Russia, even though it wasn't a country in its own right.
The Eastern provinces of Ukraine are ethnically no different from their former countrymen but politically they prefer Russian rule to European rule and they want to speak Russian rather than Ukrainian. Just how badly they want independence and how much is Russian agitation is debatable - the Ukrainian government refused them a referendum.
AJ
The Eastern provinces of Ukraine are ethnically no different from their former countrymen
Actually, much of the Western Ukraine is ethnically Polish and much of the middle Ukraine is ethnically German while most of the eastern Ukraine is ethnically Rus. This is due to a lot of the fun and games from hundreds of years ago and the many wars in between. Much of the Western Ukraine was swapped back and forte between various principalities in war and at one time a past Tsar imported thousands of Germans to settle the middle of the Ukraine.
Actually, much of the Western Ukraine is ethnically Polish and much of the middle Ukraine is ethnically German while most of the eastern Ukraine is ethnically Rus.
The numbers of Poles and Germans living in Ukraine is negligible. There is a significant number of Russians but they're largely concentrated in one area.
AJ
The Eastern provinces of Ukraine are ethnically no different from their former countrymen but politically they prefer Russian rule to European rule and they want to speak Russian rather than Ukrainian
In the eastern provinces they speak mostly Russian in the cities and towns while in the more rural parts they still speak Ukrainian. This was caused by the large influx of Russians when industrialization started (coal and steel).
HM.
According to Wikipedia (spit!), I'm wrong about Russians and Ukrainians being ethnically the same. All those white folk look alike to me ;-)
AJ
But I seem to recall Michael Loucks's epic portraying a younger Putin in a favourable manner.
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Here's the first relevant passage:
As we walked down the rolling stairs from the SAS plane, we were greeted by a man dressed in an Italian business suit, but with a KGB pin on the lapel.
"Welcome to the Soviet Union, Mr. Adams! I am Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Head of the Committee for External Relations! I was asked by Parliamentarian Ivan Konstantinovich Voronin to meet you."
"Good afternoon!" I said.
"Follow me, please," he said.
As had happened in Moscow, we were led through a separate set of doors, and directly to an office where a KGB Border Guard and another man in a business suit were waiting. Our passports were checked, and then Mr. Putin led us to a limo, then watched as it quickly whisked us away towards Vanya's tony apartment in the outskirts of the city.
And here's Steve's discussion with Mary about Putin coming to power:
"So, Miss Crystal Ball, now that Yeltsin has been reelected, what's going to happen?"
She laughed, "Heck if I know, but there is one guy to watch out for."
"Who?"
"Vladimir Putin. He's Deputy Chief of the Presidential Property Management Department, which means he's responsible for the disposition of all foreign property and will oversee the transfer of property that used to belong to the former USSR and to the Communist party to the Russian Federation. You can't begin to imagine the kind of power THAT gives him. He can buy his way into any position he wants!"
"I met the guy! Twice!"
"Really? In Saint Petersburg?"
"Yes. He was the official representative of the government who met us at the airport. Vanya Voronin arranged that. He's ex-KGB, right?"
"There is no such thing!" Mary laughed. "You should know that from your friend Katya!"
"So, Miss Crystal Ball, now that Yeltsin has been reelected, what's going to happen?"
She laughed, "Heck if I know, but there is one guy to watch out for."
"Who?"
"Vladimir Putin. He's Deputy Chief of the Presidential Property Management Department, which means he's responsible for the disposition of all foreign property and will oversee the transfer of property that used to belong to the former USSR and to the Communist party to the Russian Federation. You can't begin to imagine the kind of power THAT gives him. He can buy his way into any position he wants!"
"I met the guy! Twice!"
"Really? In Saint Petersburg?"
"Yes. He was the official representative of the government who met us at the airport. Vanya Voronin arranged that. He's ex-KGB, right?"
"There is no such thing!" Mary laughed. "You should know that from your friend Katya!"
He's also mentioned as being at a hockey exhibition in Moscow, and then this from the next book to be released (written before the Ukraine crisis):
"Have you spoken to Ivan?"
"His investments are paying off, and he and his partners have become quite wealthy. His concern, of course, is the country falling back into what amounts to one-man rule or the equivalent of a Central Committee where the Duma becomes a rubber stamp. His concerns stem from a backroom deal cut between some of the oligarchs and Putin β they keep their assets in exchange for unwavering support of his policies. Vanya could never agree to that, but he's a small enough fish that he hasn't attracted too much attention. And you know that Yuri is connected inside the government, so Lyudmila and NIKA Services are in good shape as well."
Hardly 'positive' in the sense of singing his praises; just having him appear as he did in history (and noting the oligarch problems).
And here's Steve's discussion with Mary about Putin coming to power:
Is that currently on SOL? I don't remember it.
By favourable, I meant your Putin was polite and behaved himself and didn't trigger any unfavourable warning signs to Steve. I didn't intend to imply Steve would be a fan, just that he would be happy to interact with him if in future.
Why are you even replying? Aren't you violating Godwin's Law by continuing the discussion after I mentioned Hitler? ;-)
AJ
Why are you even replying? Aren't you violating Godwin's Law by continuing the discussion after I mentioned Hitler? ;-)
No he's not. You clearly don't understand Godwin's law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1
That's it, that all it says, that as an on line discussion grows, someone making a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler becomes a near certainty.
There's nothing about the discussion being over or who wins the discussion.
I don't recognise that version - it's not Godwin's original law. IIRC, that said something along the lines that once Hitler gets mentioned, no further discussion is meaningful.
History is being rewritten in front of my very eyes. By Wikipedia (spit!)
Regarding the new version, you could replace 'Hitler' by any similar emotive word or name and it would be equally true.
AJ
I don't recognise that version - it's not Godwin's original law.
Actually, yes, it is.
From the references on the Wikipedia article.
http://w2.eff.org/Net_culture/Folklore/Humor/godwins.law
From: Mike Godwin
Subject: Godwin's Law
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 13:39:39 -0500 (EST)
Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies [a.k.a the Sexton-Godwin Law]:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
[Usenet Message-ID: , 18 Aug 1991;
possibly posted in this form as early as 1990 on The WELL.]
Or this, a New Yourker interview of Mike Goodwin:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/03/godwins-law-mike-godwin-hitler-nazi-comparisons.html
When you first proposed Godwin's Law, it stated, simply, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, such a comparison is, eventually, inevitable. Would you give it the same definition today?
The only thing I would say is that it turns out not to be limited to online discussions. Other than that, it still seems to have some observational value. It's the worst thing anybody can think of, so if you have some kind of rhetorical escalation with someone you disagree with, it's sort of easy to go there if you're not very reflective about what you're saying.
From the references on the Wikipedia article.
http://w2.eff.org/Net_culture/Folklore/Humor/godwins.law
My browsers only return the eff homepage.
I suspect Godwin himself is involved in the revisionism. After all, it replaces a humorous but poor rule with something which has some justification (but lacks the humour of the original).
AJ
My browsers only return the eff homepage.
Did you not bother looking at the New Yorker article?
Rather than accepting that you don't correctly remember what Goodwin's law is you accuse Goodwin himself of historical revisionism over what he originally posited?
Did you not bother looking at the New Yorker article?
The more links I follow, the murkier it becomes. Godwin himself seems to assert different dates for the law's origin, and one of the variants he claims he got quoted back at himself was the one I recognise. Godwin also seems to have admitted that a clause about the first person to mention Hitler losing the argument needed to be removed, yet that doesn't appear in what he claims is the original formulation.
Godwin is not a credible witness.
AJ
Godwin is not a credible witness.
On the question of what is Godwin's law, If Godwin is not a credible witness, then no one is.
If Godwin is not a credible witness, then no one is.
Perhaps if it were possible to track down the first publication ...
But Godwin is a lawyer ;-)
AJ
Perhaps if it were possible to track down the first publication ...
Well since you are the one claiming the original formulation is something other than what Godwin says it was, in my opinion that puts the burden of proof on you.
Godwin also acknowledged his current claim as to the original formulation was wrong when he admitted the clause about the first to mention Hitler/Nazis losing the argument needed to be removed.
AJ
Is that currently on SOL? I don't remember it.
The first two citations are, indeed, on SOL.
19 SOL stories contain "Vladimir Putin". I wonder whether any of the authors regret that choice.
One is my 'A Well-Lived Life' series where he appears in his actual roles (e.g. working for the mayor of Saint Petersburg). They are cameos, so no regrets.
Ditto the Barack Obama cameo which, again, reflected his actual role at the time (professor at the University of Chicago).
NASCAR driver Bill Elliott plays a large role in the series, but I was very careful to keep him carefully defined by history and his personality.
19 SOL stories contain "Vladimir Putin". I wonder whether any of the authors regret that choice.
He's mentioned in "A True History", but didn't live beyond the fall of 1984.
One of the members specifically mentioned had the initials of VVP.
Viktor cursed when he heard that set of initials. "Yob tvoyu mat! Vladimir, you have been a naughty boy. President Reagan, I sincerely apologize. Apparently there have been things going on in my organization that I was completely unaware of. If you wish, Sir, I will resign my position immediately."
On our side of the conversation, George Schultz could not help himself. "I'm sorry, did I just hear the head of the KGB apologize to the American President, and offer to resign?"
I have a story set in 2018. An important aspect of my story is that officials in the USA government, and several other governments are focused on events that occurred historically. Thus, they mostly ignore the events in my story. My story would be quite different if the leaders of Mexico and the USA would have quickly paid attention.
USA National Security Advisor Bolton, as well as POTUS Trump are mentioned. As well as Mexican President Enrique Pen Nito and SEGOB (Interior Minister), Angel Osorio Chong. Mostly, the only characters seen in the story are much lower ranked government officials.
Because refugees fleeing the area of conflict, the issue of "Building a Wall" between the USA and Mexico is an issue referenced by multiple characters. I believe I have characters express "Their" opinions, not mine.
As an example, the US National Security Advisor knows more about what is going on than the Mexican national government. When a high ranking US government official contacts his Mexican counterpart to offer surplus OH58 helicopters. The Mexican official immediately responds, "Are we expected to build the wall for these obsolete and worn out aircraft?"
Several US government officials discuss that they are minimizing the information about the situation so that it is merely a footnote in the Presidential Daily Briefing, because they are concerned about POTUS tweeting about it.
Fox News correspondent Heraldo Rivera makes a few appearances in the story. I base his few lines upon broadcasts he made as a war correspondent. I chose him because he is a Spanish speaker, and has the clout that a "stringer" would not have.
As the crisis becomes obvious, these historical characters will be portrayed in media statements, or directives; which other characters will speak about. POTUS Trump will inevitably tweet.
Some characters refer to POTUS Trump as the "Orange Man" but I believe it is consistent with their portrayed attitudes.
I believe I have characters express "Their" opinions, not mine.
Don't worry, you'll still get hate mail from people who can't tell the difference. It's about like people confusing the actor with the role they play.
It's about like people confusing the actor with the role they play.
That is the best compliment for an actor. Their acting is so good that you don't realize they're acting. It seems real.
That is the best compliment for an actor. Their acting is so good that you don't realize they're acting. It seems real.
And then the producers change the actor (multiple times), this made James Bond unreal to me. I could suspend disbelief for the stories for some time but for me the actor changes were far harder to stomach.
HM.
for me the actor changes were far harder to stomach.
What if you like a character in a novel but the actor who portrays him in the movie version isn't like him? I'm thinking Jack Reacher played by Tom Cruise. Reacher was 6'5" in the novel. We all know Tom Cruise isn't so Lee Child was against Tom Cruise doing the part.
I have a friend who's a Jack Reacher fan and hated the Tom Cruise movies because of that. Now there's a 3rd movie, this one on Netflix, where the actor is huge and my friend loved it. He said it was more like the "real" Jack Reacher.
I actually like the Tom Cruise Jack Reacher better. I fell in love with the character and modeled my Lincoln Steele series after it. But then I read a few Jack Reacher novels and actually disliked the character. Lee Child's Jack Reacher is mean, not a nice person.
The most extreme I encountered is Kathy Reichs' Temperance "Bones" Brennan.
I liked "Bones" as a TV series, then I finally read a few of Kathy Reichs' books. Aside from the character name and occupation, there are few tie-ins between the TV show and the books.
I liked the personality of the early TV Bones better, but the stories of the books were more believable.
HM.
And then the producers change the actor (multiple times), this made James Bond unreal to me. I could suspend disbelief for the stories for some time but for me the actor changes were far harder to stomach.
This probably doesn't fit in with the books, but my view of that is that it's like The Dread Pirate Roberts from Princess Bride, "James Bond" is just a cover identity for a secret agent. One agent retires and another takes his place.
With any long running movie series, especially in action films, eventually the original actor gets too old for the role. There are other reasons it happens, some good, some not, but the age issue will make it inevitable in a series that lasts as long as the Bond films have.
Another issue is that there are probably a lot of actors who don't want to become synonymous with a particular role.
"James Bond" is just a cover identity for a secret agent. One agent retires and another takes his place
Yes, that would have been a good explanation, service number and cover identity get assigned to the successor. They should have used it every time they changed the actor.
A short question "The other Mr. Bond?" and a shorter answer "Retired." No lengthy explanation necessary.
HM.
"James Bond" is just a cover identity for a secret agent. One agent retires and another takes his place.
With any long running movie series, especially in action films, eventually the original actor gets too old for the role. There are other reasons it happens, some good, some not, but the age issue will make it inevitable in a series that lasts as long as the Bond films have.
The British TV series Doctor Who has a canon explanation for the person playing the role of the Doctor changing.
Ironically, the 1967 Casino Royale film, which is not traditionally considered canon, presents the concept of different people being called 'James Bond' - not all of them male.
I am prepared for such reactions. But for them to react, at least on SOL, they will have had to Read my Story!
Most of "Those" people will probably find many more reasons to be upset with my story.
At least publicly. Perhaps they will enjoy the action, some of the characters, and secretly enjoy it. Just publicly they'll "dis" it.
I've had people dislike me enough that they Shot at me. Sometimes just because of what I was wearing (uniform). Mere words don't bother me. I just think of some of the things my Drill Sergeants said to me. At least I won't have to do extra push-ups.
As Sir Winston Churchill said, "Few things in life are as exhilarating as to be shot at without result!"
Having experienced this more than a few times, I agree. When a bullet glances off your helmet, it's not as fun!
I admit, whenever I read something like "she was beautiful, reminding me of ___ ___" [fill in any actress here], I do a Google search for a picture.
I am almost always disappointed, because so many of these in real life aren't what I consider unusually attractive. Not nearly what I had imagined while reading the story.
Of course, everybody has different ideas of beauty, but for me, it would be better if the stories avoided associations with real people.
One of the reasons why the most 'beautiful' character in my story isn't described in great detail, not compared to anyone. There's enough to know she's certainly at the top of the spectrum for a short, blond caucasian, but that's not exactly specific. The more specific I am, the more some people will go 'eh, she's nice enough, but no big deal'.
It's the flip side of Steven King's observation about the monster you hear banging around but never see - hold off as long as possible before describing it, and hopefully longer. As soon as you describe it (say, as '50 feet tall, with 100 eyes and 10,000 teeth') the reader will say, 'Whew! It's not 100 feet tall? And it's only got 100 eyes? I was expecting 500! And that's hardly any teeth at all!'
In Pride and Prjudice, many of the characters' physical appearance is communicated primarily by how others react to them. It seemed to me you do a lot the same for your characters.
In the US you can legally use any public figure with their real name as a character in a fiction story. You do need to make sure it is a public figure (actor/athlete/politician/business tycoon, ect). Their lackeys are generally considered off limits. For example if a nationally known sheriff was running for governor of their state they would be fair game. The deputy sheriff who wrote you that speeding ticket last week not so much.
Please state the law that you believe allows you to do that as the libel and slander laws apply to any statement anyone makes about another person. Thus while you could get by with a character saying they saw Joe Biden at an event you could end up in court if you wrote a story portraying Joe Biden as a homicidal maniac.
as the libel and slander laws apply to any statement anyone makes about another person.
Under US law at least, libel and slander laws only apply to false statements. Truth is an absolute defense.
you could end up in court if you wrote a story portraying Joe Biden as a homicidal maniac.
Defamation (libel & Slander, US law no longer treats them as distinct) requires a false statement presented as truth. If the story is clearly fictional, while there is nothing to stop a litigious asshole from filing a suit, it would be without merit and would be relatively quickly dismissed, though that would still cost the target a considerable amount of money.
If the story is clearly fictional, while there is nothing to stop a litigious asshole from filing a suit, it would be without merit and would be relatively quickly dismissed,
That I very much doubt as it could be seen as character assassination and liable for legal recompense.
If you paint a living celebrity in a bad way that can affect their image and character they could very easily get a court order to make you remove the story and issue a public apology. Not even saying it's fiction will get you out of that. That's one of the reason why the basic copyright legal defence phrase has wording like:
This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are fictional, and any resemblance to real people or incidents is purely coincidental.
This is because using the name of a real person in a story in a way to make it clear you're referring to that real person leaves you open to litigation for doing so, unless you mention them in a way that is either flattering or non-judgmental in any way.
There's plenty of laws they can get you for portraying them in a bad light. Mind you, if you say certain politician is a homicidal murderer and can prove it in court, go for it.
If you paint a living celebrity in a bad way that can affect their image and character they could very easily get a court order to make you remove the story and issue a public apology
1. That would have to be a personal image / right of publicity suit, not defamation when your earlier comment specified defamation(libel/slander). Under US law, a clearly fictional story can not be defamation as a matter of law.
2. Due to the first amendment injunctions against defamation, especially preliminary injunctions, are heavily disfavored, no they can't easily get an injunction on a defamation claim.
3. US federal law does not recognize a right of publicity. A little over half the US states, recognize a right of publicity cause of action either statutorily or as a matter of common law.
The most notable state with a statutory right of publicity, California, explicitly excludes fiction as a violation
@Zak
In the US you can legally use any public figure with their real name as a character in a fiction story.
My original response was in response to this quote saying it's legal to say anything you damn well want about a live celebrity in fiction under the US law. It seems you agree with it's anything goes with a celebrity, so why don't you write a fictions story about Hillary Clinton being a homicidal maniac then send her a link after you post it to SoL, and see how long before you get taken to court about it.
It seems you agree with it's anything goes with a celebrity
No, I don't, but it's not nothing goes either, which is the way your original response to Zak is worded. The situation is more complicated then that. I would suggest you re-read my comment and try to understand each of the individual points.
so why don't you write a fictions story about Hillary Clinton being a homicidal maniac
Because I'm not interested in writing anything about her.
Also, Politicians are a really poor choice of example for this. It's even harder for for them to win defamation cases under US law than for most anyone else.
fictions story about Hillary Clinton being a homicidal maniac
Because it wouldn't be fiction ... :)
In the US you can legally use any public figure with their real name as a character in a fiction story.
That is not as clear as it used to be. Around 30 states have either an explicitly passed right of publicity/personal image rights law or their state courts have accepted such suits as a common law cause of action.
While some do exclude fiction as a basis of liability under such, it is not clear that they all do.
As always, I am not a lawyer :)
Here's a 2017 reference which seems to claim that Right of Publicity did not cover fiction at that time:
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=shlj
However, current statutes decline to extend the right of publicity in two different contexts: an actor's rights to the characters that he or she brings to life or one's rights in his or her own life story.
That is much broader than what we're generally discussing here, however, but it's a useful limit on it.
This has some interesting points:
https://www.thebookdesigner.com/tricks-and-traps-of-using-real-people-in-your-writing-part-1-the-right-of-publicity/
The Right of Publicity means a person's right to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, voice, and life story.
[...]
The good news is commercial use is narrowly defined when it comes to the Right of Publicity. It's limited to:
Advertising [...]
Merchandise [...]
Impersonations [...]
Implied endorsements or relationship [...]
In context, this states that a book with axe-murdering Hillary Clinton wouldn't infringe on the Right of Publicity - unless one put her face on the cover, implied that she endorsed it, claimed to be Hillary, or sold Hillary-with-an-ax souvenirs.
Further down:
Using someone's name, image or life story as part of a novel, book, movie or other "expressive" work is protected by the First Amendment, even if the expressive work is sold or displayed. Therefore using a person's life story as part of a book or movie will not be deemed a misappropriation of the Right of Publicity.
This is followed by some interesting case law.
The article goes on to mention defamation and the unpredictability of course. Axe-murdering Hillary Clinton might well have a defamation case (possibly depending on why she wants to murder those poor axes), but then she might not.
However, defamation is difficult. From: https://helensedwick.com/how-to-use-real-people-in-your-writing/
Defamation
To prove defamation, whether libel for written statements or slander for spoken ones, a plaintiff (target) must prove all of the following:
False Statement of Fact.
If a statement is true, then it is not defamatory no matter how offensive or embarrassing. Opinions are also protected because they are not "facts." Couching something as an opinion is not bullet-proof. Courts see no difference between "Joe is a pedophile" and "In my opinion, Joe is a pedophile." The more specific a statement, the more likely it will be seen as a statement of fact. Parody is not defamatory if the absurdity is so clear no reasonable person would consider the statements to be true.
Of an Identifiable Person:
A defamatory statement must contain sufficient information to lead a reasonable person (other than the target) to identify the target. Typically, the target must be a living person, but companies and organizations have sued for defamation. Oprah Winfrey was sued by a group of Texas ranchers after saying she had sworn off hamburgers because of mad cow disease. (Oprah won the case.)
That is Published:
One person (other than the target) must read or hear the statement.
Causes reputational harm:
The statement must be more than offensive, insulting, or inflammatory. It must "tend to bring the subject into public hatred, ridicule, contempt, or negatively affect its business or occupation."
Made With Actual Malice or Negligence:
If the target is a public official or a public figure, then the plaintiff must prove the statement was made with actual knowledge that it was false or with a reckless disregard for the truth. If the target is against a private individual, courts generally require some fault or negligence by the defendant.
One has to weigh the risks on one's own fiction. In my case, I'm writing about person X in a clearly alternate universe where people are known to sometimes be very different. There's no reason that celebrity X would be at all the same person in that universe.
In a story clearly set in our own world, in the present day, with no distinguishing characteristics that make it 'unreal', my guess would be that the case would be stronger.
When it comes to politicians and celebrities, discovery is what keeps them from suing.
Suppose I claim or imply that Senator X is bought and paid for by the Chinese.
In discovery, both sides get to request and obtain things like bank statements, letters, emails, etc. pertinent to proving or defending the case.
Most celebrities, and all politicians, cannot risk having details of their finances made public. Therefore they're very reluctant to sue. Especially in cases where few people will ever see my claim. It's easier and cheaper to ignore it.
Otherwise, awkward questions may be asked, like "Senator, your salary is $150,000 a year. Care to explain how your bank balance increased by $20 million during the past 4 years?"
I doubt that Inspector Clouseau's excuse "My wife is very frugal with the egg money" is going to fly.