Autobiography question

[writing diva05]

Question:

I helped an acquaintance write an autobiography. The manuscript is about her life <a 26 year affair>. Now, I don't know if it's okay to use that man's name and other sorted details about his lifestyle etc... Is there a guideline to follow in a case like this. He's a powerful man in another state but has a pretty wild past and this lady was there for almost all if until he broke it off a couple of years ago. It's a good story--very very interesting. She's insisting on using names, places etc... and I feel a little uncomfortable about it. She says it happened to her and it's her telling the story of her life. Any info you guys can give me, or am I just being a cautious Mindy,.

[Hapsburg]

As I understand it, if you're using details of the lives of living people, you need to have their permission in writing to publish it or you could have a lawsuit on your hands. They may also request a payment for the license to publish their details. If this is the sordid past of a powerful person, then you may want to look into laws regarding libel and slander. He may not want the skeletons out of his closet and if these details could affect his carreer you could be in some hot water. There's a reason most books begin with the disclaimer "any similarity to real persons and places is completely coincidental". The only safe way around it is to write it the way the tabloids do, as rumor and heresay, in which case you loose all credibility. If I were you I wouldn't want any involvement, let her write and take credit for it as "her story the way she sees it". And I'd strongly encourage her not to use real names. My 2 cents...

[Jamesaritchie]

She says it happened to her and it's her telling the story of her life.

She's right. It's her life and she's free to write about anything thathappened to her, no matter who else is involved. Just make sure she tells the truth and doesn't say anything she can't reasonably prove.

[maestrowork]

She risks lawsuits if she doesn't have permission from the man. Sure it's her life story, but it won't stop legal actions especially if it's "he said; she said." Just think: how would you react if you were this man and find out there's a book exposing your past and your affairs?

I'm not saying your friend will surely be sued. But there's that possibility.

Most people would change the names and places/times of the event to protect the true identities of the people involved.

[Gala]

Oh come on people. Haven't you read your Kitty Kelly and Andrew Morton?

Anne Rule?

Or maybe the New York Post.

That woman who shacked up with Salinger maybe?

[Jamesaritchie]

She risks lawsuits if she doesn't have permission from the man.

There's always the risk of a lawsuit, no matter what you do. You can be sued for writing a novel. But she doesn't need permission to include anyone in her autobiography. She doesn't even need permission to write about me or you, as long as she doesn't actually break any laws in the process of gathering information.

If you needed permission to write about someone, there wouldn't be many nonfiction magazines or newspapers around, let alone all the autobiographies already out there. You don't think all those writers went around and asked permission of everyone they wanted to include in those articles and books, do you?

You would certainly never read an article or a book that showed anyone in a negative light because no one would give permission to allow something negative to be published.

You don't change the names and places in an autobiography. That would make it a work of fiction.

He said, she said, did to, didn't either won't stand up in court for either party. You can't sue someone based on he said, she said.

Just because someone writes about you, even if they say nasty things that can't be proven, does not mean you can sue them successfully. In order for something to be considered legal slander, the person most know what they are saying is a lie, and there must be malicious intent. In other words, what you write must not only be knowingly untrue, the intent of it must also be to damage the person's reputation or standing, and on top of this, actual damage must then be shown.

This is even more true in autobiography. In your autobiography, you can write about anything that happened in your life, and about any and all people who passed trhough your life, and you don't need anyone's permission to do so. You can name names, places, dates, and events. Doing so has always been a protected right.

The last thing anyone wants to read is an autobiography where names and places and dates have been changed. That could get you sued. The whole point of an autobiography is to name names, places, and dates. It's the only honest way to write one, and it's done all the time.

[Hapsburg]

Whenever I use the name of someone who is living in a work my publisher makes me get a release from them, otherwise they won't print it for fear of lawsuit.

Maybe you'd be ok with someone writing about you Mr. Ritchie, but I run a business in my state and image is everything in business. If someone wrote something negative about me, true or not, and it affected my business, I would sue.

It's not that hard to prove in court. If someone writes an article for the local paper stating that the cooks of a restaurant spit in the food and the restaurant's business drops 70% following that publication, the restaurant has claim that that article hurt them. This actually happened in a city near me. It was a burger king and burger king sued both the writer and the paper.

Unless you have proof of what you're saying, or a release, you have liability for your claims.

[maestrowork]

Best way to change names, times and places. That's what Augusten Burrough did, and some of his materials (in both Dry and Running with Scissors) are quite damaging.

[writing diva05]

Would Mr. Jim also give me his feelings on this?



I want to say: The autobiography has to do with many rendevous with this man, his open marriage and how he treated her both good and very bad at times. It does have some information in which he let be known to her. My problem is I already helped her and am now worried.

[Jamesaritchie]

Whenever I use the name of someone who is living in a work my publisher makes me get a release from them, otherwise they won't print it for fear of lawsuit.

You have an interesting publisher. I've written for four book publishers, and well over fifty magazines, and have yet to get permission to write about anything or anyone, or have yet to have a publisher ask me to get permission.

I've also worked for newspaers, and never once had to get permission to write about anyone. Nor will I.

It is extremly difficult to prove anything in court. If the newspaper and the writer had any basis at all for this being fact, the restaurant can sue, but they won't win in court. No, you can't write that workers at a local restuarant spit in the food unless you have some sort of proof, but if you do have that proof, you can write about it. And if you have people claiming they have seen it, you can write that people have claimed to have seen it, proof or not.

I've written a lot worse things about people and places, and had them published. Anyone can sue you for anything. This doesn't mean they can win.

But this is a totally differnt thing than writing about someone in your autobiography. It is your life, and you can write anything you please that happened to you. That's just how it is.

It doesn't matter how much you mind someone writing about you. That's just how it is.

Go check out the magazines and all the autobiographies out there, then tell me those people gave permission to have tehir name used like that in print.

You only have liability for saying things you know to be a lie, and that are said with malicious intent. That's the way the law is written, and that's the way it's enforced.

You can sue until you're blue in the face, but if someone is telling the truth, or if there was no malicious intent, you can't win. And if it is true, you'd be an idiot to sue because not only will you lose, you'll be telling the whole world it was true.

Freedom of the press rules, and if you don't want someone writing about you, don't give them anything to write about.

[Tish Davidson]

I'm with James on this based on my experience as a former journalist. If permission were needed to write about people, there would be no such thing as an unauthorized biography, and those get published all the time.

[writing diva05]

Thank you all. I feel a lot better now, but will go over the manuscript one more time and flag anything that may be outside of her experiences. The redevous she had with him for years are her life and what she's experienced all the way to his open marriage. I guess she was right after all, she lived it, he was in her life they played and now she's telling about her life as his mistress. Again, thank you.

[maestrowork]

Wouldn't any publisher use fact-checkers? Or is "unauthorized biography" exempt from that?

[writing diva05]

Good question....would it be best if she considered and sent it out as an unauthorized biography even though it's about her life?

[reph]

A publisher's contract will typically assign responsibility to the author(s) for anything libelous in the book, and I mean financial responsibility. Think lawyers and court costs. Consequently, the author(s) had better know something about libel laws. The laws differ from one place to another.

[Hapsburg]

You have an interesting publisher. I've written for four book publishers, and well over fifty magazines, and have yet to get permission to write about anything or anyone, or have yet to have a publisher ask me to get permission.

You wrote fictional westerns for teenagers. There's a big difference between that and a book that makes claims and accusations about a living person in power.

I still assert that it is unwise to write about living people without either their permission or proof of your claims, esp if what you are writing can hurt their career. Whether it's a book, a police report, or an article; there are consequences to making stuff up or making claims that can't be proven. If you don't believe me, write an article in your local paper claiming a public official abuses children and see what happens. They don't need to prove you're lying, you need to prove you're telling the truth.