Community hub
Recent from talks
Contribute something to knowledge base
Content stats: 0 posts, 0 articles, 0 media, 0 notes
Members stats: 0 subscribers, 0 contributors, 0 moderators, 0 supporters
Subscribers
Supporters
Contributors
Moderators
Hub AI
Unintentional defamation AI simulator
(@Unintentional defamation_simulator)
Hub AI
Unintentional defamation AI simulator
(@Unintentional defamation_simulator)
Unintentional defamation
Unintentional defamation occurs where a work of fiction contains a character that coincidentally shares a name or other recognizable characteristics with a real person, such that the real person is defamed by the depiction.
A famous early case in the field, E. Hutton & Co. v. Jones (1910), was successfully brought by a person named Artemus Jones who sued a newspaper that had published a story about a fictional Artemus Jones.
In order to minimize the risk of unintentional defamation, producers of film, television, and radio programs will engage in a process of negative checking to ensure that the names of fictional characters cannot be confused with real life people, and will post a fictitious persons disclaimer stating that the characters portrayed in it are fictional, and not based on real persons.
Negative checking is a process by which producers of film, television and radio programs will attempt to ensure that the names of fictional characters cannot be confused with real life people. For instance, during the making of the television series Inspector Morse, the producers of the show checked with local police to ensure that the names of characters used in the program could not be confused with individuals in any real life cases. The primary reason for this practice is to prevent any possible legal action for libel which could result. The term is sometimes shortened in program credits to Neg Check.
A fictitious persons disclaimer in a work of media states that the characters portrayed in it are fictional, and not based on real persons. This is done mostly in realistic films and television programs to reduce the possibility of legal action for libel from any person who believes that they have been defamed by their portrayal in the work, whether portrayed under their real name or a different name. The wording of this disclaimer varies, and differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as does its legal effectiveness.
The disclaimer came as a result of litigation against the 1932 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) film Rasputin and the Empress, which depicted the character Princess Natasha being seduced by Russian mystic Rasputin. Natasha was claimed to represent Princess Irina Alexandrovna of Russia, who sued MGM for libel. After seeing the film twice and hearing testimony, the English Court of Appeal agreed that the princess had been defamed. In 1934, Irina and her husband Felix Yusupov were reportedly awarded $127,373 (equivalent to $3,070,000 in 2025) in damages, and $1,000,000 (equivalent to $24,000,000 in 2025) in an out-of-court settlement with MGM. As a preventive measure against further lawsuits, the film was taken out of distribution for decades.
The film began with a claim that "This concerns the destruction of an empire ... A few of the characters are still alive—the rest met death by violence." Reportedly, a justice in the case told MGM that not only was this claim damaging to their case, but that their case would be stronger if they had incorporated a directly opposite statement, that the film was not intended as an accurate portrayal of real people or events. This prompted the film industry to add the disclaimer to all future movies for decades, even when it was clearly untrue.
Despite the disclaimer's widespread use, its actual effectiveness is unclear. In America, fictional works are already heavily protected under the First Amendment, and success of libel suits is rare, with a high burden of proof. Meanwhile, films using the disclaimer have still been successfully sued for defamation. Robert B. Kelly was awarded damages in 1948 for a negative depiction in the World War II movie They Were Expendable. An additional example was the 1980 film The Idolmaker, based on a fictional talent promoter who discovers a talentless teenage boy and turns him into a manufactured star. Singer Fabian, whose career path was similar to the fictional singer depicted in the film, took offense at the caricature, and the production company responded by bringing up the all persons fictitious disclaimer. Because Bob Marcucci, the promoter on which the fictional character was based, was part of the production staff (and thus it could not be plausibly denied that actual events inspired the film), Fabian received a settlement granting a minority stake in the film's profits.
Unintentional defamation
Unintentional defamation occurs where a work of fiction contains a character that coincidentally shares a name or other recognizable characteristics with a real person, such that the real person is defamed by the depiction.
A famous early case in the field, E. Hutton & Co. v. Jones (1910), was successfully brought by a person named Artemus Jones who sued a newspaper that had published a story about a fictional Artemus Jones.
In order to minimize the risk of unintentional defamation, producers of film, television, and radio programs will engage in a process of negative checking to ensure that the names of fictional characters cannot be confused with real life people, and will post a fictitious persons disclaimer stating that the characters portrayed in it are fictional, and not based on real persons.
Negative checking is a process by which producers of film, television and radio programs will attempt to ensure that the names of fictional characters cannot be confused with real life people. For instance, during the making of the television series Inspector Morse, the producers of the show checked with local police to ensure that the names of characters used in the program could not be confused with individuals in any real life cases. The primary reason for this practice is to prevent any possible legal action for libel which could result. The term is sometimes shortened in program credits to Neg Check.
A fictitious persons disclaimer in a work of media states that the characters portrayed in it are fictional, and not based on real persons. This is done mostly in realistic films and television programs to reduce the possibility of legal action for libel from any person who believes that they have been defamed by their portrayal in the work, whether portrayed under their real name or a different name. The wording of this disclaimer varies, and differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as does its legal effectiveness.
The disclaimer came as a result of litigation against the 1932 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) film Rasputin and the Empress, which depicted the character Princess Natasha being seduced by Russian mystic Rasputin. Natasha was claimed to represent Princess Irina Alexandrovna of Russia, who sued MGM for libel. After seeing the film twice and hearing testimony, the English Court of Appeal agreed that the princess had been defamed. In 1934, Irina and her husband Felix Yusupov were reportedly awarded $127,373 (equivalent to $3,070,000 in 2025) in damages, and $1,000,000 (equivalent to $24,000,000 in 2025) in an out-of-court settlement with MGM. As a preventive measure against further lawsuits, the film was taken out of distribution for decades.
The film began with a claim that "This concerns the destruction of an empire ... A few of the characters are still alive—the rest met death by violence." Reportedly, a justice in the case told MGM that not only was this claim damaging to their case, but that their case would be stronger if they had incorporated a directly opposite statement, that the film was not intended as an accurate portrayal of real people or events. This prompted the film industry to add the disclaimer to all future movies for decades, even when it was clearly untrue.
Despite the disclaimer's widespread use, its actual effectiveness is unclear. In America, fictional works are already heavily protected under the First Amendment, and success of libel suits is rare, with a high burden of proof. Meanwhile, films using the disclaimer have still been successfully sued for defamation. Robert B. Kelly was awarded damages in 1948 for a negative depiction in the World War II movie They Were Expendable. An additional example was the 1980 film The Idolmaker, based on a fictional talent promoter who discovers a talentless teenage boy and turns him into a manufactured star. Singer Fabian, whose career path was similar to the fictional singer depicted in the film, took offense at the caricature, and the production company responded by bringing up the all persons fictitious disclaimer. Because Bob Marcucci, the promoter on which the fictional character was based, was part of the production staff (and thus it could not be plausibly denied that actual events inspired the film), Fabian received a settlement granting a minority stake in the film's profits.