A hypothetical question on libel in fiction (Shakespeare)

[Asta Kask]

Assuming Richard III was resurrected - and I accept that you may not be lawyers - do you think he could sue to ban the play on grounds of libel?

[Brother Oni]

Assuming Richard III was resurrected - and I accept that you may not be lawyers - do you think he could sue to ban the play on grounds of libel?

I would think he'd be more annoyed at being under a carpark rather than a cemetary.

[Jay R]

Warning: this answer is based on U.S. Law. I'm assuming that he is suing to ban the play in the U.S.

And libel laws are state laws. He has 50 different versions of the suit to file. And thousands of suits in each state. Libel is against somebody who has libeled you. He can sue somebody who has performed it, but not somebody who is planning to do so. (If he wins, nobody else will perform it, but that's not "su to ban the play on grounds of libel.")

It's a definitive defense to libel if the statements are true. So step one is to prove that he didn't do what the play claims. If he cannot provide definitive proof, then he cannot win in court. And all the evidence is 400 years gone, so I suspect that answers the question.

If he is not a hunchback, of course, and walks into the courtroom, he has a potential case.

An interesting question comes up - when the play is performed, is it slander or libel?

Also, he must prove that he has been harmed by it. Not by Shakespeare writing, Not by Holinshed's Chronicles, the history book the facts were taken from, but by a particular production of it. And he can't. Nobody has denied him a job, or treated him badly, because that play was shown in Dallas in 2011 (or whatever).

Princess Irina Yusupov sued MGM in 1933 for a false characterization, and won. Since then, movies have usually had some version of the following disclaimer: "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

This was used for [I]The Social Network:
"While this story is inspired by actual events, certain characters, characterizations, incidents, locations and dialogue were fictionalized or invented for purposes of dramatization. With respect to such fictionalization or invention, any similarity to the name or to the actual character or history of any person, living or dead, or any product or entity or actual incident is entirely for dramatic purposes and not intended to reflect on any actual character, history, product or entity."

So in America, it would probably all be waved away as "dramatic license".

I assume that if the issue came up, all future productions would use a similar model. "This play was written by William Shakespeare based on the accounts of Holinshed. We present it as a work of fiction, and all characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

[Aedilred]

Warning: this answer is based on U.S. Law. I'm assuming that he is suing to ban the play in the U.S.
He'd almost certainly sue in England, of course, since not only is that his native jurisdiction and where the play was written, but also has one of the more punitive libel regimes around to the point where defamation tourism is actually a thing.

Here, the defence would have to prove that the play was not written/staged with the intention of damaging the reputation of the individual, and so forth. Until very recently (last year) it wasn't even a defence to defamation that the statement in question was true. The defence could try fair comment or public interest but that's going to be quite hard given how long ago the events occurred. Moreover it's one of the few areas of law where the burden of proof rests by default on the defendant rather than the claimant, so he has an advantage right out of the gate: he doesn't have to prove that events didn't occur like that; the party being charged would have to prove that it didn't.


Since then, movies have usually had some version of the following disclaimer: "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
Such notices have no effect in English and Welsh law.

[BannedInSchool]

He'd almost certainly sue in England, of course, since not only is that his native jurisdiction and where the play was written, but also has one of the more punitive libel regimes around to the point where defamation tourism is actually a thing.

Here, the defence would have to prove that the play was not written/staged with the intention of damaging the reputation of the individual, and so forth.
Can the state now sue you for defaming it by explaining the libel law?

"Knowing the law is illegal, Citizen." :smallbiggrin:

[Aedilred]

Can the state now sue you for defaming it by explaining the libel law?

"Knowing the law is illegal, Citizen." :smallbiggrin:

I think the public interest defence would apply in that case; that citizens should know the law (or be able to know the law) is of course a fundamental component of the rule of law.

'sides, I didn't say it was a bad thing. A lot of people have made a lot of money out of the E&W libel laws. Especially lawyers... :smallamused:

[Anarion]

Zz'dtri has a comment. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0789.html

[enderlord99]

Zz'dtri has a comment. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0789.html

That isn't true in Britain. Sometimes it isn't even true in America. (http://plantsvszombies.wikia.com/wiki/Dancing_Zombie)

[Brother Oni]

That isn't true in Britain. Sometimes it isn't even true in America. (http://plantsvszombies.wikia.com/wiki/Dancing_Zombie)

Huh. I thought it was changed due to his death making the appearance no longer in good taste.

[Asta Kask]

In Sweden he might have a case. My lawyering-expertise is limited to 3 minutes on Wikipedia, but he would probably lose the case. Swedish courts give very wide berth to matters of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

[KuReshtin]

I really can't see how this isn't a question of legal request, even if it's posed as a 'hypothetical' question.
it's still asking for interpretation of real-world law, which would, i would think, be not appropriate for the boards.

Also, I'd assume Richard III would have more pressing issues that trying to sue a person that's been dead for centuries.

[Bulldog Psion]

Just the kind of crazy hypothetical stuff I find amusing. :smallbiggrin:

He might be able to turn a decent profit by claiming product identity on himself and obtaining royalties from all productions, film showings, etc. involving him, at least those that are entertainment oriented and not documentaries. IANAL, however.

"The royal royalties have just been paid into your checking account, Mr. Plantagenet." :smallbiggrin:

[Anarion]

That isn't true in Britain. Sometimes it isn't even true in America. (http://plantsvszombies.wikia.com/wiki/Dancing_Zombie)

That appears to have been removed upon request because the estate was offended and the game makers decided to be nice, not necessarily because the estate was going to win its case, a point upon which I have no comment.


I really can't see how this isn't a question of legal request, even if it's posed as a 'hypothetical' question.
it's still asking for interpretation of real-world law, which would, i would think, be not appropriate for the boards.


It's not. It's like talking about the xkcd what-if where he ends by noting that somebody riding around with an ax at midnight can be detained by police. (http://what-if.xkcd.com/90/) Or an Annie Liebovitz parody image.
http://stewartmckelveyblogs.com/themedium/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/06/Demi11.jpg

The discussion has no bearing on providing advice to any actual person or issue.



Also, I'd assume Richard III would have more pressing issues that trying to sue a person that's been dead for centuries.

But I bet people would be lining up to represent the newly revived Richard III. Just think of the positive reviews if you won his case!

[Aedilred]

He wouldn't be able to sue Shakespeare (or Shakespeare's estate) in any case as the limitation period would have expired centuries ago. He could still go after modern productions of it, though.

[Jay R]

He'd almost certainly sue in England, of course, since not only is that his native jurisdiction and where the play was written, but also has one of the more punitive libel regimes around to the point where defamation tourism is actually a thing.

Sure he would, but that doesn't affect the US. He has to sue people putting on the play, wherever they are putting it on.

And in the U.S., he would have to show what harm this production has caused him. People putting on a play in 2014 are not responsible for any pain caused in the 16th-20th centuries.

Since he's a public figure, he'd also have to show that they did it with intent to harm him, which is obviously false. (They don't know he still exists.)

[Elemental]

The real question here is... Would he be able to sue Shakespeare if we brought him back to life as well?

[Bulldog Psion]

The real question here is... Would he be able to sue Shakespeare if we brought him back to life as well?

Or if he still had his 15th century personality, would he just go looking for the Swan of Avon, battle-axe in hand? :smallwink:

(Actually, feudal lords tended to be remarkably litigious as well as warlike, so lawyers are as likely as hewing, if not more so. But it makes a better question for purposes of silly amusement, IMO. And there's a chance he really would try to find him to kill him, probably. :smalleek:)

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please give the Inappropriate Topics a wide berth. This thread does get into giving legal advice and real world politics.