CaseyJJones
New Member
If an author interviews a subject regarding a true event where the interview subject has specific knowledge of key events but is not the primary person involved in the story:
1. the event was published in newspapers all over the US; however, specific facts were only known to the interview subject;
2. the interview subject knew of the author's intent to write a story at the time of the interview (no release was signed);
3. the interview subject intended on writing about the same story;
4. the author read a book proposal written by the interview subject five years prior to the interview (the book proposal written by the interview subject was never picked up by any publisher);
5. the author published his book on the internet (the author's book covers the same events as the interview subject's book proposal but they are very different is style, organization, and presentation); and
6. the interview subject then revoked her permission after the book was published.
Here are my questions:
1. Can the interview subject revoke her permission after the book was published? Can the author still use her real name (again her name was in the papers associated with the event)?
2. Does the merger doctrine or scènes à faire apply in this case where it is a true story expressed in written form. What about specific facts gained solely from the interview subject?
3. Does the interview subject have an invasion of privacy claim even though she planned/tried on writing a book about the same story; and the information about the interview subject in the author's book would not be offensive to a reasonable person?
5. Would she be able to claim loss of income due to the author publishing (even though she had tried to publish and couldn't)?
6. Is there copyright infringement here? How can you tell copyright infringement? Of course there are similarities but the diction is quite different.
Am I missing any other claims she might have?
1. the event was published in newspapers all over the US; however, specific facts were only known to the interview subject;
2. the interview subject knew of the author's intent to write a story at the time of the interview (no release was signed);
3. the interview subject intended on writing about the same story;
4. the author read a book proposal written by the interview subject five years prior to the interview (the book proposal written by the interview subject was never picked up by any publisher);
5. the author published his book on the internet (the author's book covers the same events as the interview subject's book proposal but they are very different is style, organization, and presentation); and
6. the interview subject then revoked her permission after the book was published.
Here are my questions:
1. Can the interview subject revoke her permission after the book was published? Can the author still use her real name (again her name was in the papers associated with the event)?
2. Does the merger doctrine or scènes à faire apply in this case where it is a true story expressed in written form. What about specific facts gained solely from the interview subject?
3. Does the interview subject have an invasion of privacy claim even though she planned/tried on writing a book about the same story; and the information about the interview subject in the author's book would not be offensive to a reasonable person?
5. Would she be able to claim loss of income due to the author publishing (even though she had tried to publish and couldn't)?
6. Is there copyright infringement here? How can you tell copyright infringement? Of course there are similarities but the diction is quite different.
Am I missing any other claims she might have?
