Soldier Sues Because He Insists Movie 'Hurt Locker' Must Have Been Based On His Life
from the let's-explain-how-this-works... dept
You see stories all the time about moviemakers and authors being sued because someone else had a similar "idea" for a story. Those lawsuits almost always end up going nowhere fast. Now in a slight twist on this, someone's demanding cash because a movie character is based on him. Matthew Cruse was the first of a whole bunch of you to send in the story of how Master Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver is suing the producers/filmmakers and screenplay writer of the movie Hurt Locker, claiming that the main character was based on him. That's nice, but how is that against the law in any way shape or form? The problem is that it isn't. In most cases (there are some exceptions), you can make a movie out of someone's life without their permission, thanks to that old First Amendment.The fine folks over at The Hollywood Reporter have gotten their hands on the actual complaint (pdf) and explain how Sarver hopes to get around the pesky First Amendment with some creative lawyering:
According to the complaint, before [screenwriter] Boal was embedded with the military, he and Playboy agreed to "ground rules" set by the Department of Defense. One of the rules was that reporters would be restricted in the type of personal information they could report on a service member. Reporters were limited to releasing a member's name and hometown only, and only on the condition the service member had provided consent.This still seems like a huge long shot by someone who feels entitled to something he has no actual legal rights over. Even if the story was completely based on Sarver (and the filmmakers claim that it was a fictional story), it's hard to see any courtroom outcome that leads to him getting a cut of the film, as he's requesting. Of course, it's amusing to note that while he claims the movie was based on him, he's also claiming defamation, in that the movie portrays him in false light (such as in that the character is a bad father). So, wait. Isn't that effectively admitting that the character in the movie is not him and is, indeed, a fictional character? Of course, we did write about one case last year that stunningly found that a fictional character can be libelous, but we're still hoping that was an aberration that won't be repeated.
Was this agreement sufficient to give Sarver a stake in the story and film? He says so. Another claim in the lawsuit is for breach of contract. Another is violation of privacy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, fiction, first amendment, hurt locker, movies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wait, fuck. That doesn't work here either; it doesn't appear Sarver is entitled to the corporate veil. Eventually I'll get it, I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another hometown whacko
By the way, if you ever want to find Feiger, just follow the TV cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how's that disclaimer go?
Oh, no, wait. I was thinking of "No animals were harmed in the making of this film." Sorry, my bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what? Avatar was based off my life. I met James Cameron once and told him how I wanted to go into space someday. Then he went and made a whole movie about that. But he's defamed my name because I'm not handicaped. I want a cut of Avatar's profits now or I'll sue him. Makes about as much sense as Sarver's claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flip of the coin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"That character is clearly based off of me, and that's NOTHING like how I really act!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
someone owes me big!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Studios Tie Up News Rights
This behavior is puzzling---the studio lawyers and producers who grind over and over the same old plots. They want to tie-up any and everybody who has a connection to a news event.
For example sign up the rights from the sheriff who was first on the scene of the child at the bottom of the well cave-in.
This is of course hypocrisy on the behalf of the purveyors of artistic works. The studios snort, huffle and stamp their heels at each other and try to frighten off competitors to the same genre, whether all the movies in one year are about volcanoes, meteors, or pirates-- what have you. Thinking ahead 3 years to the release window.
Otherwise, they *should* understand the dilemma of any writer, that is, studios and writers all strip-mine the same materials.
I heard advice from one animator---"Don't pitch that story to Disney. They openly admit upfront they'll steal the idea."
Today's NY Times is amusing, Barry Avrich is doing an unauthorized documentary on producer Weinstein Brothers, and they told him Tarantino will put out a competing project.
The previous doc on Wasserman, while he was around, would have got the director killed, or at least a horsehead courtesy of Sidney Korshak. Which actually happened to Wasserman daughter's fiancee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I spent the entire second half of the movie waiting for Kevin Costner to pop out in a headdress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the credits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The movie is undoubtedly based on this guy. That much is obvious. He should get someone to write a book for him and promote it on the back of the movie. The studios will clearly object but in doing so they will have to admit to using him as an inspiration for the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is beginning to sound as if some of your articles are straying from economic agruments and expanding to articles having not a whit to do with economic theory.
Perhaps our judicial system should simply fold its tent and let "Que sera" rule the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? I write about what interests me. I always find it amusing when people think that they have the right to tell me what is acceptable content for this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I did nothing of the sort. (1) I pointed out how ridiculous it is from a *common sense* standpoint for this to be occurring and (2) I linked to legal analysis from real actual lawyers who pointed out that this had little chance of getting through.
It is not "contempt for lawsuits and judicial decisions that do not reflect my understanding." It's called giving an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What "real actual lawyers"?
I tracked all the links, and links in each link, before even making my comment.
Take a look at the complaint. The facts are more involved than the article here suggests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entitilement
This is the key issue. I'm not sure if it is a misguided sense of entitlement, or just greed - thinking you can get away with a claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just putting a disclaimer "This characters in this film are fictional...etc" is not legal protection in any manner. Otherwise I would have a bumper sticker on my car that says "The operator of this vehicle is not responsible for an collisions that may occur".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, how has this guy lost his story?
People write stories based on people they know all the time. That's called writing. And it's not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sgt. Sarver is Clearly Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]