Real people, parallel worlds and legal/moral issues

Hello Amanita, in my Joan of England Fantasy series I have two people from our world that also exist in Joan's world (which is a parallel Earth from another universe) and they are Prime Minister Tony Blair and Ice Skater Sasha Cohen.

However, my Tony Blair is described as an old man with very long red hair, while Sasha (her real name, while our world's Sasha is really called Alexandra) is also given a very different description and my Sasha is, at year 2007 of my first novel, way younger than the Alexandra from our world =)

I think that, as long as you include differences like that to create your own parallel world versions of real people from our world, you should have no trouble...

 

This is not good advice, sorry ShortHair. I don't want anyone to get into hot water over faulty legal advice. There's no real fair use issue here. As a rule we're not talking about copyright. We're talking about right of publicity and defamation issues, maybe some trademark issues depending on how and why the names, likenesses, and so on are used.

Parody and satire are protected first amendment expressions. South Park falls pretty squarely into those categories.

Defamation has a high standard when the subject is a public figure. The parallel world issue doesn't enter into it. All the plaintiff has to prove is that it will be seen to be about them. There's no reasonable way you could avoid that by simply having a parallel world and trying to argue it is not 'about' the person. Your fallback in the U.S. is that the standard is high (I think you have to show actual malice).

Where you're more apt to run into trouble, depending on how your work is put together, is in the right of publicity areas. Those laws can vary a bit in the U.S. If you're in the 9th or 2nd Circuit they can provide quite a bit of protection to the celebrity (and in some states, to non-celebrities). In some jurisdictions, rights of publicity end at death, but that's not true in all places.

Amanita - odds are, most of what you want to do is in pretty safe territory. A caveat that is always there is that a celebrity with a lot of money who wants to make an issue of it can be a real problem, and from what you've said you would at least on the face of things be giving them issues to raise. If you are concerned, consult with an attorney who handles this stuff.

The above is all US law. Germany is different, but remember that if your work ends up for sale in the US, then US law will matter to you as well.

 

Well given that Winston Churchill is a recurring character in Doctor Who, and a lot of historical novels include real people, I think if they died long enough ago you're probably safe. And by that I mean not within living memory of most people. Someone like Lady Di, well, she only died 15 years ago and she was really in the public eye; plus her ex and her sons are pretty influential. But anyone who died before 1950 I would say you're probably safe with as long as you handle it carefully, ie stick fairly closely to the truth as far as their personality and politics and beliefs are concerned.

 

This is not true.

Right of Publicity persists after death in many jurisdictions (in Washington State, in fact, it persists after death for celebrities but terminates at death for non-celebrities). Depending on how you are using the name, there may be trademark or similar rights associated with it, and those can persist indefinitely. Rights in a given likeness last after death of the rights holder (which may or may not be the person depicted).

In any event, as I noted above I think Amanita's risk is relatively low. But it pays to act with knowledge, so that one can judge the risk accordingly. In this case, even if people are alive who could bring an action it does seem to be relatively unlikely. But you never know for certain what people will do.

 

This "de facto " argument is completely false. Please don't answer these kinds of questions if you don't know the answer, people. Apart from the OP, others reading it might believe it. Of course, you believe internet advice at your own peril, but still...

 

Feo:

You have to look at every case on its facts. It is quite possible that there is nothing wrong with the use in the series you mention. As I noted, above, I think the risk to the OP in this instance is minimal, but it pays to know the issues when contemplating something like this.

In the comic book/Cary Grant examples, it may be that Grant gave permission. It is also worth noting that it is not the 1960s anymore and much of this area of the law has evolved a lot.

If you want to go back more recently, a hockey player (Anthony Twistelli, I think) sued Todd McFarlane comics (who publish Spawn) over use of the name Tony Twist. In that case, the similarity rested primarily in the name and the fact that the hockey player was considered something of a bruiser. The character in the comic book wasn't supposed to be the hockey player or anything like that. Twistelli brought a right of publicity claim, won, won again on appeal, and got something like a $15 million dollar judgment. And that particular player isn't even that famous.

So it is worth thinking about, at the very least, and the assertions above that it can be brushed off because you have some automatic right to use these names or likenesses are simply false.

 

The problem these days is if you publish your book and make it available in California, you may be subject to jurisdiction there even if you don't live there.

 

Depends on the jurisdiction. Some recognize a right of publicity for any person, whether a celebrity or not. Others limit right of publicity to celebrities. With celebrities, you might have more issues come into play, however.