Can you use real companies in your book?

Moved from Ask the Agent to Novels, since it's a question about novels rather than agents.

A word of advice: "fiction novel" is redundant. A novel is fiction by definition.

- Victoria

ezc_19 said:

In a fiction novel, can you use real companies if you cast them in a bad light?

Click to expand...

You can, however you run the risk of said company suing you for libel.

They can also sue you if you call the company a ficticious name but it sounds very much like them.

Be smart. Be safe. Make up a company name.

Chances are you are going to be way too small for any large company to even notice you are using them in your book.

Still it's better to make up company names. Not only is it safer but it's more fun.

Of course that said, I use microsoft in my comic a lot. (They make the comic more relatable to my readers .) I never even thought Microsoft noticed until one day I got an email from a microsoft exec's aid asking me if her boss could buy one of the toons.

Making up a name is a good idea in this case. Then you can be as snarky as you like.

I've read books with a "Sherriot" hotel chain, MacDoodle burgers, "Cluck in a Bucket" chicken, and "Firkinblock" boots.

Some of these are intentionally humorous, so careful there if you want to be serious.

there's something really disturbing about the fact that an author has to be so careful about mentioning companies in their novels or even alluding to them. If the companies are observed to have questionable policies or ways of running business shouldn't that be open for discussion? Sheilding companies to such a degree and discouraging criticism by putting muzzles on authors is doing the public an injustice and possible harm.

I don't find it disturbing at all. We live in an opinionated society with a lot of lawyers eager to grab cash from one side or another.

I can see it from a company's POV in that one disturbed writer with an axe to grind might decide to harsh on an otherwise okay business. We all like to slam McDonald's, but we still eat there.

The company has a right to defend itself from the nut jobs, same as the rest of us.

If I decide that "Dis-me-land" Productions is the next anti-christ, then I can slam it all I want in my books. Everyone knows who I'm really talking about, but I'm protected from legal reprisals. (I think!)

In turn, if they retaliate by naming a bad guy in their next movie Gilhooly, there's nothing I can do about it. Heck, I'd probably buy tickets for all my pals.

As I doubt the above situation will ever happen, I'm going to not worry about any of it.

If the company does do horrible things like hooking millions of people on a product that kills them (tobacco, for instance), there are public forums where one may debate all you like and name names.

But if you go after a specific one in your book, then a fake name is just common sense.

In Boston Legal this week they went after the "ABC Tobacco Company," which stood in for ALL of them so far as I'm concerned.

If their facts are right (and their writers use Google) then in the time it's taken me to write this post about 58 people have died from smoking-related disease.

BenPanced said:

Be smart. Be safe. Make up a company name.

Click to expand...

Ditto. Ask yourself the obvious question: Why do I need to use a real company name? Unless you can come up with a good, defendable reason, don't do it.

caw

unbalanced authors with an axe to grind should of course be kept in check from attacking companies and industries. At the same time, though, authors with legitimate complaints, backed by fact, should be allowed to have their say w/o having to worry about being slapped with lawsuits. (I'm personally thinking of writing a non-fiction book about a particular practise that most major companies engage in, and while I would be critiquing corporate America as a whole I probably would site specific examples and companies to substantiate the points I'd be raising. The project would be challenging enough w/o having to type with kid gloves on.) // "58 people;" wow that's scary!

I don't think there's anything wrong as long as you're accurate. Motel 6 can't sue for describing its motels as cheap and run down. MacDonald's can't sue you for saying its food is junk. FOX News can't sue you for saying its programming is stupid. These are all opinions and you're allowed to have opinions and even state them. You may turn off some readers but in my opinion the verisimilitude is worth it.

And yes, I am a lawyer, and no, this is not legal advice.

To answer the original q: I always make up names for everything, and shy from even using those "trademark" type names despite them being made up. It's just 100 percent not my thing to bring reader focus on company names, to me it's just distracting for no good reason.

anis said:

unbalanced authors with an axe to grind should of course be kept in check from attacking companies and industries. At the same time, though, authors with legitimate complaints, backed by fact, should be allowed to have their say w/o having to worry about being slapped with lawsuits. (I'm personally thinking of writing a non-fiction book about a particular practise that most major companies engage in, and while I would be critiquing corporate America as a whole I probably would site specific examples and companies to substantiate the points I'd be raising. The project would be challenging enough w/o having to type with kid gloves on.) // "58 people;" wow that's scary!

Click to expand...

Wasn't there a little book called "The Jungle"? I think it's okay to slam companies with legitimate, backed up facts. How is it libel if it's true? When you start mixing lies with your investigative writing, that's when things get sticky. For instance, at a McDonalds where I worked previously, most workers did not wear gloves. But to take that one example and say "Most McDonalds workers don't wear gloves" is to generalize thousands of stores and many more times that amount of people.

That is libel.

Anis, Freedom of Speech does not protect you from the consequences of your actions. If you can prove your facts, and are writing non-fiction, then why are you worried? It's not libel if it can be proven accurate.

The Lonely One said:

Wasn't there a little book called "The Jungle"? I think it's okay to slam companies with legitimate, backed up facts. How is it libel if it's true?

Click to expand...

First, I'm not sure Upton Sinclair's novel actually named the names of extant companies.

Second, and more important for a century later, it might not matter if your allegations are true or not, if you don't have the resources to afford to fight litigation against a major corporation.

Back to a point I made earlier: This is the Novel Writing forum. As in Fiction. Unless the writer has a damn good overriding reason to use the name of an extant real actual factual company, what is the point in doing so?

caw

thanks for the feedback, folks. Will make sure to back everything in my non-fiction book with facts and be conservative about any conclusions I draw. Think I'll also stash my stamp and coin collection in some secret cache, in case I still wind up getting sued. Shhh ;-)

The Lonely One said:

How is it libel if it's true? When you start mixing lies with your investigative writing, that's when things get sticky. For instance, at a McDonalds where I worked previously, most workers did not wear gloves. But to take that one example and say "Most McDonalds workers don't wear gloves" is to generalize thousands of stores and many more times that amount of people.
That is libel.

Click to expand...

You're generally right, but in the US it's pretty hard to be found liable for libel (no pun intended...). Here's a basic overview:
http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html

ezc_19 said:

To further my explanation, I am making up most names (popular names like Bush and Putin I am keeping for historical reasons), but there are instances where I need to use real companies and others where I am okay with making up names.

For instance, using a company like General Electric, which is huge and has products (dishwashers...etc) and programs (NBC..etc) that effect many people, is more "powerful" than making up a similar coorporation and trying to explain to the reader how important that company is in the average persons life. Instead of NBC, I can make up a channel like KBC or MBC, but than the relationship to other General Electric companies is no as obvious without spending much more time explaining the situation.

Click to expand...

Call it Generic Electric, or Behemoth Electric, and I'll bet most readers will get the point. If you're describing the activities of a mega-corporation that affect nearly everybody in one way or another, you shouldn't need to do much explaining.

caw